On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:48:22 -0700, you wrote:
>My reaction to your comparison is this: yes, there are magnification and
>contrast differences, but, at least in my case, I had to look close. It
>wasn't like the difference between a dog and a gem jumped off the screen and
>hit me in the face. Perhaps a difference would become more obvious comparing
>pro-printed enlargements rather than low-res screen scans. But from what you
>put up there, they don't look all that different to me.
>
>I appreciate your comparison, in fact. It made me feel better for a kid I
>know who got a Rebel 2000 with a 28-90 for her graduation.
Ken -
You know, it's not an "L" lens, but it's not a dog at all. I think
this kid should be really happy with it. It *feels* pretty flimsy - I
always gripped the inner zoom barrell when putting on a filter or
hood, otherwise there's kind of a disconcerting crunch, but . . I got
a lot of photos with it that I'm quite happy with.
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
