--- Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SORRY! That should have read **62mm version** >
Ah-Ha!! Now it makes sense. So, we both have the same cheap 'n nasty lens. You paid $51 for it, and I guess it was worth it. I paid $100 US for it, and I thought it was worth it at that price (barely). But, not much more. It's a fun lens, and the cheapest way one can go ultra-wide. I Googled it, and I couldn't find any reference to filter sizes, but the reviews I found were all over the board. Some thought it a great bargain and a worthwhile performer, others thought it so bad it was unusable. At the very least there are significant sample-to-sample variations, along with varying expectations and standards of users. I'm going to stop posting about this lens now <g>. (famous last words...) cheers, frank ===== "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
