On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM, paul stenquist<[email protected]
> wrote:
I'm glad you find the 35/2 superior to the 31/1.9 limited. ...
I didn't say that, Paul. I said I didn't find it 2x to 3x the quality
as implied by 3x the price. I also found that it flared in various
circumstances and was difficult to fit with a decent lens hood.
I find the 16-50/2.8 is the equal of both the 35/2 and the FA 50/1.4,
Sigh. I found the lens to be a fine performer ... better or worse than
those two I couldn't say as I never actually tested it in comparison.
I didn't like working with it ... too big, heavy and clumsy to work.
But then, you like Chrysler products.
Sigh, still a child I see. At least you're consistent.
Godfrey
www.gdgphoto.com
www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto
www.twitter.com/godfreydigiorgi
--
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.
--
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.
