On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:22:03PM -0400, John wrote: > Never cared for either Rolex or Timex. The former is too expensive & > the latter is too cheap (in all the various definitions of the > word). I'll stick with the Swiss Army Watch (actual Victorinox) that > I've worn for the last 30 years.
Timex makes, or at least used to, a series of watches branded "Ironman" or somesuch. They had two large buttons on the front and would do a very good job of taking lap times, or sector times. They have been getting progressively harder to find over the years. > > And the days when I lusted after the A* 135mm f/1.8 are past as well. > > Now it had better be a FA* 135mm f/1.8 and it needs a FF 135 DSLR to > go with it. If I'm looking for fast glass in that AoV, I might as well get an 85/1.4 on APS as a 135 on 24x36. I want full frame for my wide angle lenses. Although when it comes down to it, lets acknowledge the physics of the situation, and I want a mirrorless 24x36. Ideally, it will have an optical zoom rangefinder. If I'm shooting macro, where parallax would be an issue, then I can use the electronic display. > > On 7/22/2013 2:54 PM, Darren Addy wrote: > >Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for > >owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8. > > > >On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>>Can it really be worth $2569 ? > >>> > >>Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8. > >> > >>bill > > > -- > 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. -- Larry Colen [email protected] http://red4est.com/lrc -- 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.
