The FA 200 macro is in a class by itself. Much fairer to compare it to
any of the other 200's that's all. (This was not meant as a criticism,
just a comment).
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: D
series & 200/4 model
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: D series & 200/4 models
Well that's kind of unfair, the FA is a macro, I would expect it to be
_much_ sharper than the M, focus much more closely and cost a whale lot
more...
I did say that the M wasn
Well that's kind of unfair, the FA is a macro, I would expect it to be
_much_ sharper than the M, focus much more closely and cost a whale lot
more...
(whale was my spell checkers Idea, I think I like it).
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From:
Subject: D series &a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone as yet compared the A, M, & K
200/4 lenses on a digital body?
Are results available to view?
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Not yet, I've only the
et/photodb/photo?photo_id=2686452
Paul
>
> - Original Message -
> From:
> Subject: D series & 200/4 models
>
>
> > Has anyone as yet compared the A, M, & K
> > 200/4 lenses on a digital body?
> > Are results available to view?
>
> T
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: D series & 200/4 models
Has anyone as yet compared the A, M, & K
200/4 lenses on a digital body?
Are results available to view?
The M200/4 is definitely optically not as good as the FA200/4 Macro.
Not that the M is bad, the FA
On Sep 21, 2005, at 7:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone as yet compared the A, M, & K
200/4 lenses on a digital body?
Are results available to view?
I did some comparison tests including the A70-210/4 Macro and A200/4
on the DS but haven't posted them. It works well: the A200/4 pro
Has anyone as yet compared the A, M, & K
200/4 lenses on a digital body?
Are results available to view?
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
8 matches
Mail list logo
