I, on the other hand, have alway lusted after a 70mm for my 35mm cameras. But since I now skip the intermediates --using a 24, 35, 50, and 100 , + an 80-200 (hum..? I guess a 70 would fit in there nicely, but it would have to be faster than 2.8)-- I guess it does not matter any longer. Now if only someone would send me a 17mm <grin>.
-- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, graywolf wrote: > >> The missing focal length in the series 17.5, 25, 35, 50, 70*, 100, 140, >> 200, 280, 400, etc. >> >> *Except for the 70 there has always been something within a few percent >> of that square-root-of-two series. > > Yes, but there has usually been an 85. > > 70 is too short or too long for me (on 35mm). 85 is so borderline I > have let go of my 85/2 in favour of the 100/2 (or the 90/2.8 if space > is tight). > > YMMV. > > Kostas > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
