If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote in
: NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote in
: Alan Browne wrote in : NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. Nope - not a thing wrong with it. As several 11x17s on my wall can attest. Mike |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote in
: Alan Browne wrote in : NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. Nope - not a thing wrong with it. As several 11x17s on my wall can attest. Mike |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in : NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. I'm just more in favour of the 24-105... -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Magnus W wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in : NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. I'm just more in favour of the 24-105... -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Magnus W wrote in : Alan Browne wrote in : NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. Nope - not a thing wrong with it. As several 11x17s on my wall can attest. I'm biased to the 24-105. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Magnus W wrote in : Alan Browne wrote in : NO - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common. Nope - not a thing wrong with it. As several 11x17s on my wall can attest. I'm biased to the 24-105. -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote in
I'm biased to the 24-105. Don't blame you for that. While I don't have one (I'd like to, but can't jsutify it, since my 28-105 is more than adequate for my needs), it has the rep of being as sharp as the 24-85, without the 24-85's distortion problems. But it's probably out of the range of the posters' price, which if I'm recalling the thread correctly was a big consideration. Mike |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote in
I'm biased to the 24-105. Don't blame you for that. While I don't have one (I'd like to, but can't jsutify it, since my 28-105 is more than adequate for my needs), it has the rep of being as sharp as the 24-85, without the 24-85's distortion problems. But it's probably out of the range of the posters' price, which if I'm recalling the thread correctly was a big consideration. Mike |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in I'm biased to the 24-105. Don't blame you for that. While I don't have one (I'd like to, but can't jsutify it, since my 28-105 is more than adequate for my needs), it has the rep of being as sharp as the 24-85, without the 24-85's distortion problems. But it's probably out of the range of the posters' price, which if I'm recalling the thread correctly was a big consideration. Yes, I was ignoring the price restriction ... otoh I didn't invoke the f/2.8 constants either (;-)) -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentax *ist compatible with P3n lenses? | Patrick M. Ryan | Digital Photography | 2 | August 31st 04 04:27 AM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Pentax "K" & "M" Lenses ? | Radio Man | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | June 23rd 04 10:23 PM |
Review for several Maxxum lenses. | Elie A Shammas | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | June 18th 04 02:34 PM |
Asking advice | Bugs Bunny | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 69 | March 9th 04 06:42 AM |