Peter is the 28-70/4 the AL? What do you think of it? I have one and have heard it's very sharp but seldom want to use it due to the "plastickyness". (Just made up a new word?) ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 4:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Mike Johnston's latest... > > > I have one, I bought it to get the camera that it was attached to. I > must admit I do > love the concept. I do wish I could love the lens. It does gender > respect in the clueless > however. (This is not to say that a good photographer can't make good > photographs with it, > but my FA 28-70 f4 and F 70-210 f4~5.6 beat it all to hell for quality > results). Unlike some > of the prime lens users here I sometimes fall prey to the siren call of > convenience. > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > >In that article Mike says: > > > ><quote> > >All-purpose 28-200mm zoom lenses: > >Bad snapshots. Also great for making five rolls of > >film last a whole year. All-purpose = no purpose > ><end quote> > > > >Do you folks agree or disagree with this? > >I've been thinking this range would make a good > >event/party/gathering/group/portrait/head-shot/etc lens. > >Anyone tried one? What did you think? > > > >Don > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:13 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Mike Johnston's latest... > >> > >> > >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-august-04.shtml > >> > >>This one is a "laugh out loud". Really great :) > >> > >>-- > >>Mark Roberts > >>Photography and writing > >>www.robertstech.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
