Thats why i'm holding out for the 60-250 or Tammy 70-200 Dave
On Feb 14, 2008 7:18 AM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DA*200/2.8. > > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a > prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available > (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ? > > I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
