Re: Vs: FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 AL [IF] Picture

2001-03-14 Thread Aaron Reynolds
Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Gee, Aaron, I am always willing to give a home to unwanted lenses. Just because it's crap doesn't mean I can /give/ it away. ;) If I ran a business like that, I'd lose a shedload of money every time a shipment of TMax came in! -Aaron - This message is from the

Re: Vs: FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 AL [IF] Picture

2001-03-14 Thread Aaron Reynolds
Chris Brogden wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I'd give it to my Dad to shoot with, but what's he done to me to deserve such an awful lens? Not bought an LX? :) I hate to say this...but I don't think my Dad needs an LX. Actually, I think he'd be really really

Re: Vs: FA 28-105 3.2-4.5 AL [IF] Picture

2001-03-13 Thread Aaron Reynolds
Raimo Korhonen wrote: In what way the 2.8-4/28-105 Sigma is excellent? If you are implying that it is sharp or has good contrast, well, the answer to both is negative. I have tried it and sold it off quickly. The 4/28-70 Pentax AL is visibly sharper. Yes, the Sigma is black and has 2.8