[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a beast
of a lens, but well worth the effort, plus the price is less than half of the
new 400/4, if you can find one.
Thanks for the info. I asked because Henry's has one for $1400 (CDN),
which still seems like a lot.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the
As mentioned previously, it has a 25 ft. min focusing, which is about a
waist-up portrait. It doesn't have an auto aperature, but I always shoot it
wide open anyway. It performs, believe it or not, as good as the 300 2.8 A
35mm lens in a test I did just a few months ago using a 67 to 35
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anyone on the list used the old 67 400mm f4 (the non-ED IF one)? Is
it worth using? What's the minimum focus distance?
Aaron,
Here's a chart showing all the info for 67 lenses:
http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/pentax67/lens-info.html
The minimum
Aaron wrote:
I haven't touched my LX in a week. To be fair, I had the 67 first, so
the LX is the other woman, if we want to make this into a creepy
relationship analogy.
Ew! Creepy!
Still, I think audible means obtrusive in that kind of environment.
Certainly I was less annoying than
4 matches
Mail list logo
