Mark D. stirred the pot with:
>
> Gimme a 50mm over a zoom anyday. I use a 50mm for 90% of my shots.
>
> IMO, a 28-105 is just so's one can avoid saying "body only" when
> ya sell a body to an amatuer... it's an expensive body cap. <VBG>
No - that's what a 28-80 is for. The 28-105 is too expensive,
and doesn't look any more impressive. Especially if you end
up with a dull black one - those silver-finished lenses just
look so much more professional, don'tcha know.
http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/c2000m03.jpg
was taken with a 28-105.
I rarely use a 50mm (I definitely use my 300mm more), but it's
nice to have the 28-105 in the bag for those occasions when an
80-200 is a bit too long. I wonder how well the 24-90 performs?
--
John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427
MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101, Mt. View, CA 94041
Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
