Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 12/5/04 12:44 PM, "Luis Miguel Casta?eda" <lmc@interlink.es> typed: > On 5 de dic de 2004, at 20:44, John Collier wrote: > >> Sure, underwater. > > underwater is nearly unbeatable, but isnt as bad as you think on land, > at least I will prefer it before the other nikkors for F-mount I've > tried. > > Obviously it cant stand with a modern asph well designed one. I was > trying to say that Nikkor-F 28s arent so good. > > > Saludos, lmc@imaginarymagnitude.net The Nikon 28 2.8 is so bad the guy in the local pro camera store refused to let me buy it twice. I think the story goes Nikon has not getting around to correcting it for near focus yet. This was the problem with the early AF Nikon wides. Now they are all up to snuff with the exception of the 28. A nice 28 is nice because with digital it becomes a a 42. True normal. What else could one ever want than true normal? Other than a good apology. Their 24 is pretty nice. Becomes a 36. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/