Re: [OM] Of Alaska, Photography, and Work

[Ken Norton]

> Things were simpler when the arguments were largely confined
> to the merits of 2.8 vs. 2.0 lenses.

Oh, that's easy:

1. The 2.8 lenses you have are better than the 2.0 lenses you don't have.
2. The 2.0 lenses you have are better than the 2.8 lenses you don't have.
3. The 2.0 lenses you have are better than the 2.8 lenses you have.
4. The 3.5 lenses you have are not better than the 2.0 and 2.8 lenses
you don't have.
5. Silvernosed is bonus.

AG Schnozz
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/