I wouldn't call the K200D/50-135 exactly conspicuous. At least not compared to a 645 with a 150 prime (Holy Mirror Slap, Batman) or even my D300 with f2.8 glass mounted. But it's definitely more conspicuous than a DS with a 28/2.8
-Adam On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM, gldnbearz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure I will. The 50-135 is not exactly an inconspicuous (?sp) lens, > lengthwise. ;) > > To be inconspicuous, gimme the istDS + FA28. > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:32 AM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ya, but you won't get those nasty stares in subways, like Frank gets. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
