On 19 Mar 2005 at 19:34, Peter J. Alling wrote:
> I prefer to go the other way, a nice 1.3 crop 9-12mp body would make my
> LTD 43mm an nice ~55mm equivalent.
> (If we're asking for things we won't get that is).
Yes, well ultimately my preference would also to be able to fit my existing
lenses
well, i would like an ordinary 24 limited to replace the FA* 24/2. can we
compromise on 25?
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: More DA Limiteds
I love mine but it's stil
I prefer to go the other way, a nice 1.3 crop 9-12mp body would make my
LTD 43mm an nice ~55mm equivalent.
(If we're asking for things we won't get that is).
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 19 Mar 2005 at 11:53, William Robb wrote:
Have you tried the 31?
It's big and heavy, but is an excellent lens.
Rob Studdert wrote:
nice fast compact DA26/2 LTD would be just about perfect
as a normal.
Don't forget to add a few more specifications - as well as fast and
compact, let's ask for CHEAP, light, well built, sharp, contrasty and no
bokehmonsters... q-:
Unfortunately I can just see a very nice len
On 19 Mar 2005 at 11:53, William Robb wrote:
> Have you tried the 31?
> It's big and heavy, but is an excellent lens.
I love mine but it's still a tad too narrow on the *ist D, its weight and size
I can live with but a nice fast compact DA26/2 LTD would be just about perfect
as a normal.
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: More DA Limiteds
Yes, I had the 31 Limited. It's truly an excellent lens, but I
don't see why such a lens should be double the size and 50% heavier
than a 35/2. I sold it because I found that its size an
At least because it looks much beter on a K1000 or similar...
OK, not a good reason ;)
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:40:55 -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2005, at 9:53 AM, William Robb wrote:
> >>> The "normal" lens is the most versatile lens on earth.
> >>
> >> And
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Sung Nee wrote:
>
> >> The
> >> 40 is so restricted in its usefulness
> >
> > The "normal" lens is the most versatile lens on earth.
>
> And for a *istD/DS, that would be something in the range of 28-35mm. A
> 28/2
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: More DA Limiteds
On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Sung Nee wrote:
The
40 is so restricted in its usefulness
The "normal" lens is the most versatile lens on earth.
And for a *istD/DS, that would be something in t
On Mar 19, 2005, at 9:53 AM, William Robb wrote:
The "normal" lens is the most versatile lens on earth.
And for a *istD/DS, that would be something in the range of 28-35mm.
A 28/2 would be perfect for me.
Have you tried the 31?
It's big and heavy, but is an excellent lens.
Yes, I had the 31 Limite
On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Sung Nee wrote:
The
40 is so restricted in its usefulness
The "normal" lens is the most versatile lens on earth.
And for a *istD/DS, that would be something in the range of 28-35mm. A
28/2 would be perfect for me.
Godfrey
> The
> 40 is so restricted in its usefulness
The "normal" lens is the most versatile lens on earth.
Hmm, I´d prefer larger aperture rather than pancake size. A compact 20
2.0 would be nice...
DagT
På 19. mar. 2005 kl. 03.18 skrev Joseph Tainter:
- DA "thin" LIMITED wide prime (20-30mm range)
- DA "thin" LIMITED mid-tele prime (60-70mm range)
--
Does "thin" mean that these will be pancak
- DA "thin" LIMITED wide prime (20-30mm range)
- DA "thin" LIMITED mid-tele prime (60-70mm range)
--
Does "thin" mean that these will be pancake lenses too?
I had dismissed the DA 40 as a gimmick lens, but I got to thinking today
that it would make it easier to take my camera with me more
14 matches
Mail list logo
