WOW! Mounting a lens on a DSLR automatically increases the filter size of the lens...
Best,
Mishka
> My new(to me) FA 75mm f1.4 for the *ist D.
>> C'mon Robbo. Spill the beans! What was in the package??
>My new(to me) FA 75mm f1.4 for the *ist D. The 77 will be too long a
>portrait lens on the DSLR to me, so this should replace it nicely.
>Looks like that is me committed to a degree now, its not a length I
>would normally use on 35mm, de
nal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 March 2003 19:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: 100/3.5 versus 135/2.8 (was Re: New lenses)
>
>
> <>
>
> Not me squire. Oooh no. Well, not much anyway. Just think, 200mm F2.8
> Subject: RE: 100/3.5 versus 135/2.8 (was Re: New lenses)
>
>
> >
> >BTW cheers - package arrived.
> >
> >Rob
>
> C'mon Robbo. Spill the beans! What was in the package??
>
> ;-)
>
> Cot
>
> ___
<>
Not me squire. Oooh no. Well, not much anyway. Just think, 200mm F2.8
equivalent with min focus at (gets lens out of box and drools) 70cm.
The 50 was a good purchase though.
Cheers
Peter
>
>BTW cheers - package arrived.
>
>Rob
C'mon Robbo. Spill the beans! What was in the package??
;-)
Cot
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.mac
"Th. Stach" schrieb:
>
> Alin Flaider schrieb:
> >
> > Caveman wrote:
> >
> > C> Any info on the 100/3.5 macro that could decide me to
> > C> go in favor of the FA 135/2.8 ?
> >
> >Yes, the 100/3.5 is the ugliest piece of crap that ever carried the
> >Pentax name.
>
> Ha ha, true. But thi
Alin Flaider schrieb:
>
> Caveman wrote:
>
> C> Any info on the 100/3.5 macro that could decide me to
> C> go in favor of the FA 135/2.8 ?
>
>Yes, the 100/3.5 is the ugliest piece of crap that ever carried the
>Pentax name.
Ha ha, true. But this is due to the fact that Cosina builds it.
8 matches
Mail list logo
