Not even close. The 135 actually has a rather poor reputation, the 100 is rare enough that I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having one.
At 09:50 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
are they even the same optical design except just scaled differently? JCO
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Short telephoto prices > > > I believe that the 100 is somewhat more scarce than the 135. > > At 02:51 PM 3/7/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >Why does the SMC-A 100/2.8 sell for significantly more than the SMC-A > >135/2.8? Does the former have better optics than the latter or > is it just > >that the former is more convenient for portrait work? > > > >-- > >David Barts > >Portland, OR > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
