I think you'll get more REAL use out of the 90/2 Macro than a 40/2 unless
you _really_ value camera-lens compactness a whole lot. The 40/2 isn't a
stellar performer. Certainly no better than the 35/2 and not up to the
50/1.8. So IMO, your money is better spent on another focal length.
(Of course I say this knowing that I have a 40/2 in my case. Does this make
me a heel? ??)
Skip
****** I M P O R T A N T R E P L Y I N F O ************
Please adddress ALL offlist messages to skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
This email address is ONLY used for this mailing list subscription and
posting purposes. I read the list via Hotmail.com or the web-based archives
to keep the traffing down on my email account.
I will probably not notice any private messages addressed to this
HOtmail.com email address.
***********************************************************
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You did the right thing. Really. You will not EVER regret it.
Tom
> Tell me I did the right thing? Oh yes, anyone who wants a Tamron 90/2.8
> macro? It's a darned good lens...
>
> Now how can I pay for the 40/2 pancake? Arrghh...
>
>
> // richard http://www.imagecraft.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|