I see people with both the aforementioned lenses in their signature. Most actually have the 135 2.8 SF. Why the duplicity there? Is it just because the 135 2.8 is so cheap or the 135 2.8 SF is cheap and has the SF ability?
Mr.Clean Cream of the Crop  6,002 posts Likes: 3 Joined Jul 2005 Location: Olympia, Washington More info | Nov 02, 2006 11:56 | #1 I see people with both the aforementioned lenses in their signature. Most actually have the 135 2.8 SF. Why the duplicity there? Is it just because the 135 2.8 is so cheap or the 135 2.8 SF is cheap and has the SF ability? Mike
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gasrocks Cream of the Crop  13,432 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2005 Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA More info | Nov 02, 2006 11:58 | #2 I suppose you answered the question. The 135 SF is a great bargain so why not have one. GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2777 guests, 139 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
