Chalk another one up to enablement guys! Just promise to let us in on your answers to Brads eternal questions...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 21 November 2002 17:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > OK I'm sold. I'm getting a 77 Limited. > > William Robb wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Rob Brigham > >Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > > > > > > > > >>Funny everyone who has doubts seems to be someone who hasn't > >> > >> > >tried it. > > > > > >>I am telling you from experience, the difference is clearly > >> > >> > >visible even > > > > > >>at that size. This is why when my wife shows photos I took of > >> > >> > >our > > > > > >>children playing with their friends to people, they > >> > >> > >unknowingly ask for > > > > > >>mainly shots taken with the 77 as reprints/enlargements. The > >> > >> > >ratio is > > > > > >>unbelievable and undeniably meaningful. They never asked for > >>enlargements before. > >> > >> > > > >Since I don't use zooms a whole lot, I can't comment on comparisons > >between zooms and the 77. I can comment on the difference > between the > >77 and the M85mm f/2 (not a highly regarded lens, but as > good as most > >zooms, I expect). > >The difference in quality is visible to the naked eye looking at > >slides on a light box. The difference is glaringly obvious in a > >4x6 print. > > > >William Robb > > > > > > > > > > >
