plastic and glass which in some cases have begun to separate, (with predictable results).
I have found it to be relatively easy to use as a manual focus lens. There are others that
have a better focus feel, but with that in mind the lens produces very good to excellent rresults.
Don Sanderson wrote:
Peter is the 28-70/4 the AL? What do you think of it? I have one and have heard it's very sharp but seldom want to use it due to the "plastickyness". (Just made up a new word?) ;-)
Don
-----Original Message----- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mike Johnston's latest...
I have one, I bought it to get the camera that it was attached to. I must admit I do
love the concept. I do wish I could love the lens. It does gender respect in the clueless
however. (This is not to say that a good photographer can't make good photographs with it,
but my FA 28-70 f4 and F 70-210 f4~5.6 beat it all to hell for quality results). Unlike some
of the prime lens users here I sometimes fall prey to the siren call of convenience.
Don Sanderson wrote:
In that article Mike says:
<quote> All-purpose 28-200mm zoom lenses: Bad snapshots. Also great for making five rolls of film last a whole year. All-purpose = no purpose <end quote>
Do you folks agree or disagree with this? I've been thinking this range would make a good event/party/gathering/group/portrait/head-shot/etc lens. Anyone tried one? What did you think?
Don
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mike Johnston's latest...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-august-04.shtml
This one is a "laugh out loud". Really great :)
-- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
