Instead od M100/2.8 try to find K105/2.8, it is allegedly much better lens ( I own it-very nice) Alek
Użytkownik Ken Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >I just bought a M 100/2.8 on your advice. I don't need a macro, but I >did need a 100/105 lens for field portraits of handlers with their >dogs. This is probably one of the easiest lens to focus for a guy who >went mostly to AF because of bad eyes. I love this lens. Thanks for >your great contributions to the PDML. > >Ken > >On Saturday 15 June 2002 02:16 am, Mark Cassino wrote: >> On macro vs non macro lenses: I have an M 100 f2.8 and a Kiron 105mm >> f2.8 macro (identical to the Vivitar Series 1 100mm f2.5). With the M >> lens it takes about a 100 degree turn of the lens to move form >> infinity to 2 meters focus distance. With the Kiron it takes about a >> 30 degree twist. Yes - you can keep turning the Kiron forever till >> it gets to 1:1, but for fine adjustment of focus at longer working >> distances, non macros are better. (And thanks to Valentin Donisia who >> taught me this - though I argued the point with him at the time!) >-- >Ken Archer Canine Photography >San Antonio, Texas >"Business Is Going To The Dogs" > --------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a----------------- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
