Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Great! The 18-55 is somewhat underrated based on the few pics I've made > with one, which was back when I got my first DS. See my review of the DA > 16-45. The 18-55 would be just a little more of the same. I do like it's > somewhat longer reach than the 16-45, makes the lens just a little more > useful for me, but I like the wider end on the 16-45, which, yesterday, I > discovered, while very handy, still isn't wide enough. > > IAC, congrats and good luck with Tri-State and the camera. > > Shel >
I've never shot anything wider than 28mm with film - I'm more of a get in closer kinda shooter - so the 18-55 for an fairly inexpesnsive starting auto lens should be fine. can't wait to get the beast now that I've taken the plunge thanks for the suggestions and "review" ann > > [Original Message] > > From: Ann Sanfedele > > > I grabbed the body from Tri-state at $449.00 and the 18-55mm > > lens - just cause I needed one auto lens. > > > > after swearing I'd never (again) buy anything on line - I > > did it just now - > > The shipping was outrageous - but I was too impatient and > > didnt notice.... eager to > > get it and give my borrowed mini Canon back to my friend. > > > > had it shipped USPS because the mail guys all know me > > and I don't mind picking stuff up from Post office . > > UPS and FedEX are a real PITA here. > > > > Everyone said grab it - I still paid less than I did for the > > drowned Canon... > > > > Thanks to all you guys for suggestions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
