In a message dated 1/10/2003 4:37:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> P�l Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> In a message dated 1/9/2003 9:00:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >writes: > >> > >> > An FA 400 2.8 for 35mm. > >> > >> I'd go with that -- something good for wild life photography that would not also >break the bank. > > > >A 400/2.8 that would not break the bank? Never heard about such a lens. > > Well, for certain values of "bank" I suppose. > It'd certainly break *my* bank, but I know people who spent > more on their > stereo speakers than my car cost new! > > -- > Mark Roberts Probably my bank as well; I've looked at some of the prices for current lenses. But this was a wish list, right? So I wish for one that I could afford. Or I could live with a decent FA 200-400 f4 zoom until I win the lottery. Doe aka Marnie ;-)
