I smell a nice controversy here, so in I go with both feet: I prefer two-ring zooms to
the one-touch type.
I've had both - although I have only two-ring lenses now - and I found that the
one-touch design tempted me into fiddling with the focal length at the same time as
trying to focus. I al
Hi Steve...
The Vivitar lens falls into the you-get-what-you-pay-for category. While the
$130 price tag is intriguing, I wouldn't get this lens for anything more
than a springboard to something better. It's a bit soft wide open and has
noticeable light-falloff in the corners at the short end. The
> If you ever get a chance to try the M24~35/3.5, give it a whirl.
> It's a two-touch, and I certainly understand your dislike for that
> style, but somehow - perhaps because of its size or minimal focal
> range, it doesn't seem to be as difficult, if that's the right
> word, to use as other two-t
Pentax made a 75-150 zoom that has
SUPERB perfromance, so why settle
for a 75-100??
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Fred
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Help,
If you ever get a chance to try the M24~35/3.5, give it a whirl. It's a
two-touch, and I certainly understand your dislike for that style, but
somehow - perhaps because of its size or minimal focal range, it doesn't
seem to be as difficult, if that's the right word, to use as other
two-touch zoom
At 01:28 8-2-2002 -0500, you wrote: (about the 24-35)
>From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>It's so much better than the A24~50/4.0 ... smaller, lighter, faster,
>easier to handle, sharper, less prone to flare, better build quality
>(IMO) and there are a few decent lens hood options - and p
Great minds think alike ... see my reply to Fred.
Is there a 65~105/2.2 out there somewhere? I suppose I could live with
it ...
William Robb wrote:
> Hmm, I see a Limited zoom lens opportunity here.
> Shel, could you live with a 65-105mm f/2.2?
> The 50~85/1.8 would be a really nice lens, I be
I can understand that ... could I interest you in a 43~77/2.0 Ltd zoom
with "stealth mode" to subdue the whirring sound - in black, of
course. Actually, that could be a very nice focal range.
Hmm ... 24~35, 43~77, 75~100 with fast fixed apertures. Nice travel
kit.
Fred wrote:
> [For my own p
Original Message
From: Steven Gilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 7 Feb 2002 13:19:05 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Help, I need advice for short and long
focal lengths
My main rig is a super program with a SMC-A 35-
105/3.5. This with a 50mm & 85mm account for
2/3rds of my sh
>My main rig is a super program with a SMC-A 35-105/3.5. This with a 50mm &
>85mm account for 2/3rds of my shooting. If there was a SMC K, M or A zoom
>that went to 300mm I would get one, but as you all know there isn't. Any
>recommendations for an economical substitute? This will usually be
> If there was a SMC K, M or A zoom that went to 300mm I would get
> one, but as you all know there isn't. Any recommendations for an
> economical substitute?
I'd suggest the Tokina AT-X 100-300/4, Steve. It would dovetail
nicely with your 35-105, and it's a superb long zoom.
Fred
-
This messa
11 matches
Mail list logo
