| Subject: | Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape |
|---|---|
| From: | Michael Collins <MRC.OlympusList@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:00:12 -0500 |
You can't get away so easily with that statement! I've seen (and handled) the LensBaby that's in your lens cabinet :-) . Michael On 2/24/09 5:05 PM, Jan Steinman wrote: > Life is too short for soft lenses! -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Ritz going under, Andrew Dacey |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Ritz going under, Chuck Norcutt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape, Moose |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape, Wayne Harridge |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |