Marc Lawrence wrote:
>If it wasn't for the contradictory reports, I think I'd be looking
>at the Sigma 30/1.4 at this very moment for the C*non, to give me
>that same focal length at least. I've a magazine to catch up on
>(the UK's 'Black & White Photography', one of two photo mag's I
>regulary buy) that has a review of it.
>
>
Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass on a summary of the results?
>My experience with the New Year's Day pictures using the Zuiko 35/2.8
>wasn't good. I just can't use the lens well. Couple that with getting
>development done at a recommended store in the city that, I noticed when
>I got the photos back, had written incorrectly "400"-speed on the
>development slip (I don't know enough about development to know if
>it is developed differently, and what affect this would have had), and
>gave me all my prints in a muddy-brown black & white (it was 200-speed
>colour print "consumer" film).
>
Doesnt' matter what they write on it, all C-41 processing is the same.
Have you looked at the negs? It's entirely possible that the failure was
in printing and the negs are fine. 50-50 chances, I suppose.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|