Yeah, but I don't own any Zuiko Digital lenses. ;-)
I didn't figure that the kit lens was going to be a great lens. I was
just saying that it covers a pretty useful range and that it's not
overly bulky. You tend to pretty much get what you pay for with
optics and you aren't paying a lot for the standard kit lens. I'm not
a huge fan of C@non products in general, but my understanding is that
they make some nice stuff at the pricier end of their range. God
knows I see pros toting enough of it around.
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:49 AM, alfredo pagliano wrote:
> A more fair comparison would be with a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko
> Digital....
>
> Moreover, I've used both a 17-85 IS and a 10-22, and had a very hard
> time deciding which one was the worst.
> Let's say that if the 17-85 is a pechinese, the 10-22 is a chihuaua, I
> mean, both are dogs, of some different species... ;-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|