On 9 Jul 2004 at 12:33, Bob Meyer wrote:
> The problem is the range in between. The 24-70 (or
> 28-70, which I own) is a great lens, but bulkier and
> heavier than I really want to carry while traveling,
> especially when it's in ADDITION to the other lenses.
> I did miles and miles of walking, and a camera bag or
> backback gets heavy pretty quickly. (OK, call me a
> wimp if you regularly hike with a 70-200 IS L.)
Yes, you are a wimp.
I climbed the Crookedest Street in San Francisco, with 12kg
PhotoTrekker, and still beat my brother and my father to it....:))
(amidst 5 days of walking around in SF that way)
(and then started cursing them for having ignored the map that there
was a cable-car-stop on top (mental note: never trust other people's
map reading))
Only thing more exhausting is 'skating' up a hill on ski's, to get to
the last chair-lift of the day (at the risk of needing a taxi for a
100km detour back to the appartment).
Oh, and winching that FJ55 Land Cruiser up a car-trailer, by
hand....I nearly ripped the winch lever off....:))
(any other FJ55-owners on this list?....;))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
