On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Beacom wrote: > > On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Tanya Love wrote: > >> Weeeeeell, in a dream world, I would be able to get myself an ultra sharp >> 100mm, f1.8 macro that is small and light, and has beautiful bokeh... >> >> ...but, we *are* talking Pentax here, so erm, there are few things that they >> bring out that are "ideal" (as much as I love them!).
Uh, a small, light 100mm f1..8 is a physical impossibility. It has nothing to do with Pentax's expertise or lack of the same. Paul >> >> I tend to agree with you here though Bruce. I think that I will have more >> versatility with the 100mm, and I really have been needing a decent macro >> lens for ages. >> >> If only it was f1.8 instead of 2.8!! Oh well, it'll suffice I guess, I just >> wish that those damn babies would sit still in low light! Lol. > > So, gaffers taping babies to the table is bad form? > > Cheers > Mike > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
