Good morning, Peter, What distinction do you hang on the word "true," in "true macro." Must be a subtlety there that I'm not aware of. Or, more likely, I've forgotten it's accepted meaning. <g>
Peter Smekal wrote: > > Thanks guys for all these very constructive ideas. > It seems to boil down to: > 24/2.8 + 85/2 + tripod. No 50/1.4, no 135/3.5, no winder. The flash I own > is the AF280T, and it seems it will have to stay at home too. > The only thing I have not been able to make up my mind about yet is the > 35-105 zoom. Of course it is rather heavy and big. It even looks that way. > Its definitely not unobtrusive. But I like it as a "walking-around lense". Seeems to me, if you plan to be taking photos not exactly related to your original quest, and you will be able to stand the weight and bulk, have at it! Having a lens with you with which you're totally familiar is always useful... Here's something to think about, however...if you've tested that zoom well enough to be quite satisfied with it's performance capabilities, maybe you don't really need that 85/2? If you're really reducing bulk... You will be sacrificing the f/2.0 speed of the 85, but if you can/will use the tripod, maybe even that doesn't matter. > And I like its "macro" capabilitites. Although it isn't "true macro" I've > used it many times to shoot interesting details, like door-knobs, coins, > stones, fruits, flowers etc ... > Can anyone talk me out of it? > > Peter Smekal > Uppsala, Sweden > [EMAIL PROTECTED] keith whaley Los Angeles - 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 .
