On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:22 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Just a random drive-by thought...
> >
> > The 100/2.8 is likely a near ideal lens for your application, but
> > another to seriously consider is the 135/2.8. The extra reach may be
> > just what the doctor ordered.
>
> If I recall correctly, Moose made this suggestion early on in this topic
> of a lens for Paul in a dark theater.
>
> Why yes, you're right, almost a month ago, he said:
>
> "The 135/2.8 doesn't get a lot of notice, but it's a nice, relatively
> light, compact lens ..."
>
>
You did, in fact, utter those exact words. Sadly, they got buried 2347
emails back, and then there was all the excitement about the 40-150/2.8
that I can't buy yet....
When I make my acquisition, you, sir, will get due credit. You can share
with Ken. Sharing is nice.
--
Paul Braun
Music Junkie
"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life." -- Harlan Howard
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|