David Magradze wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone who responded to my question,
>
> One more thing - probably it's not right to approach thing like that,
> but at B&H
> 28-105mm costs 250$
> and
> 24-85mm costs 320$.
> Does it mean itself that 24-85mm is the better lens?
>
> David
>
> GOD! I wish to I have enough money to buy both (and more)....
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Magradze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: EOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:20 PM
> Subject: Lens comparison question
>
> Hi guys,
> One question on ,
> 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
> 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
> 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
> Whish takes better quality photos?
> Which lens should I buy?
> Sorry for bothering with (probably) already discussed topic, but
> (unfortunately) I'm not so rich to waste my money on something that isn't
> good. :)
> Thanks,
> David
Not necessarily.
The 28-105 might have been out longer so R&D is paid for. There might
be more demand for the 28-105 so the manufacturing costs go down, due to
volume, making the street price lower.
It comes down to volume.
Bob
--
//////
( 0 0 )
-73 de Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organized people are just too lazy to look for things.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
