Hi Paul ... You wrote: > As an available-light lens, the 85/2M sucks. > As a daylight lens, it's terrific.
How eloquent. Why does it "suck"? Define "available light". Isn't daylight available light? AFAIK, all the lenses you've described or suggested as alternatives are slower, bigger, and heavier, exactly the attributes that would make them less desirable for "available light", or low light, situations. > I used it briefly as my walking-around > lens, and liked the results. So if you liked the lens, why does it suck? > It's scarcely longer than a 50, so it's > unobtrusive. And it's nearly as light. They Sound like good attributes for walking around. > I sold it because the 85 got me hooked on > walking around with a telephoto, and > one you're hooked, you can't get enough > focal length. That's just *your* preference, because it supports your style of shooting and personality. > I now walk around with a 105 or 135. > Weight and length are secondary. Now *that* sucks <g> ... for me. That often puts a lot of distance between the photographer and the subject. What subjects do you most frequently photograph that you need/want such distance? > In any case, you may not find one > for months. Get yourself a 90/2.5 > macro or 90/2.8 macro--they're all > sharp--and be happy. And what would be the advantage of a macro lens over an 85/2.0 as a walking around lens? Again, I don't understand your POV. Marcus, BTW, said nothing about wanting the lens for such a purpose, he just wanted to know if it was a dog. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
