Hi, Steve, OOOooooo - a 2.8 (drool drool) - even better. I couldn't remember which one you had, but I knew you liked it.
Well, I'm about 90% or more B&W, but I will buy the odd roll of colour for family and holiday snaps, only to stop the inevitable whining (why didn't you take colour?), and 'cause it's cheaper if you consider processing costs. The rare times that I shoot "serious" (I don't know how to say that without sounding pretentious) colour stuff, it's been Porta VC, lately. But, on your say-so, I'll try the Fuji. Thanks for the tip. Your 24-48 still not going yet? That is too bad - I'm still loving mine. That's one nice lens! <vbg> Hope you're able to get yours fixed someday. cheers, frank Steve Larson wrote: > No, the S1 35-85/2.8. I finally found the film that works excellent with it, > Fuji NPS 160. Have you tried the 160 yet Frank? Nevermind, you`re B&W > only. > Maybe someday I`ll get my 24-48 back :( > Steve Larson > Redondo Beach, California > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:25 PM > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes > > > S1 3.5 70-210? > > > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > > > Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an > > > circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap. > > > > -- > > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > > > -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
