I have 35-80/2.8 too but it's very heavy .......... 650g, heavier
than 90/2 & 100/2 :-(
---
Michael
Palm, Linux, Olympus, Mac user
At 19 Jan 2007 8:19 PM ，Walt Wayman wrote：
> An alternative might be the 35-80/2.8, but the chances of getting
> one of those is just about nill. I'm thinking about locking mine up
> in the safe. :-)
>
> Walt
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
>> Guess I missed that.
>>
>> --
>> "Anything more than 500 yards from
>> the car just isn't photogenic." --
>> Edward Weston
>>
>> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> From: "Tom Fenwick" <super.wide@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> He implied that he already has both the 100/2 and the 90/2. He's
>>> working
>>> his way down.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/01/07, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A 90/2 is bigger and weighs 10 more ounces, but how much does
>>>> that matter?
>>>> And it does macro down to 2:1 without accessories and is a great
>>>> lens. Of
>>>> course, you'll probably have a better chance of finding an 85
>>>> than a 90.
>>>> Mine is staying here for sure.
>>>>
>>>> Walt
>>>>
>>>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|