On 9/26/2013 7:35 PM, Paul Braun wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2013 1:22 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> Just a random drive-by thought...
>>>
>>> The 100/2.8 is likely a near ideal lens for your application, but
>>> another to seriously consider is the 135/2.8. The extra reach may be
>>> just what the doctor ordered.
>> If I recall correctly, Moose made this suggestion early on in this topic
>> of a lens for Paul in a dark theater.
>>
>> Why yes, you're right, almost a month ago, he said:
>>
>> "The 135/2.8 doesn't get a lot of notice, but it's a nice, relatively
>> light, compact lens ..."
> You did, in fact, utter those exact words. Sadly, they got buried 2347
> emails back,
But stuck somewhere in AG's subconscious, only to reemerge a month later. :-)
;-)
> and then there was all the excitement about the 40-150/2.8 that I can't buy
> yet....
Not here.
It's sometimes difficult to separate the "OH, shiny, new!!!" stuff from
evaluating whether it will likely serve the
intended purpose, and whether it is worth the high price, in $, size and
weight, for the intended purpose.
> When I make my acquisition, you, sir, will get due credit. You can share
> with Ken. Sharing is nice.
I just hope you get something that serves you well.
Servacious Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|