> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]De la part de Icoz, Evrim
> I think I meant zooms, I should have been more explicit. Why not have a
> 28-80 2.8 which is not maybe as sturdy or "contrasty"? Just a thought.
Canon has produced a 28-80 2,8-4L in the past.
Why not a 28-80 2,8 ! :) But who knows the Canon's desire ! :)
And some people would like a 24-70 2,8L, or a 24-80 2,8, all with of course
high performances...
It's never stop !
I think that a 24-70 2,8L is more usefull... But people can't agree with
me... :)
--
-- PhOTo -- vOYaGe -- GrAPhiSMe --
Portail : http://perso.magic.fr/drocha
Groupe fran�ais Canon EOS :
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/canoneos_fr/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
