Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/04/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] more trees
From: kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:45:26 -0500
References: <4F78FD5E.5090702@cox.net> <78CB5B3B-AAE7-48C5-85A3-6F9D5B1FE1F1@mac.com> <4F7905F9.3020804@cox.net> <1389B244-A2FF-4FCD-A61F-4B347A796B7A@mac.com>

On 4/1/2012 9:17 PM, George Lottermoser wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Ken Carney wrote:
>
>> 16-35 2.8 on my 5D Mk II.  The 16-35 needs to be stopped down to f/8 or 
>> so, though. Not an issue for what I use it for, landscape mostly.
> Indeed!
> the 16-35 2.8 lasted 10 days - for me.
> my sample simply sucked at any and all f stops.
>
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george at imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com/blog
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
 From what I've read there must be a lot of sample variation in that lens.

Ken


In reply to: Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] more trees)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] more trees)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] more trees)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] more trees)