No disagreement there, I agree there is no substitute for the
200-500/2.8.
I was simply questioning, as a photographer (who thinks he has been
around the block
once or twice), the sanity of this lens.
I was just kidding about the OM-1 bit - since even a Canon 1D or NIkon
D3 looks tiny
stuck to the back of this, I can't imagine what an OM must look like.
On 21 Apr 2009, at 7:20 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I think the reason for the Sigma's existence is that your substitutes
> aren't really substitutes.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|