Subject: No, I still have them, but... Author: scoprio_fish Date: 12/21/2002 7:34:12 AM Message:    the 17-35mm stays on the camera most of the time. If I'm shooting wide and carrying two bodies, the 17-35mm stays on the D100 (=25.5-52.5mm) and the 20mm goes on the F100. The 24mm is semi-retired. Got a port extension and zoom gear to use the 17-35mm underwater. What a rip-off. A lousy gear with a set screw about $60. A port extension, an aluminum tube with screw mounts on both ends for over $200. That's at cost. The quality is such on the 17-35mm that when used on the D100, it should yield excellent results. I'll be shooting in the f8 range anyway and the digital crop should help the edges. Getting to 52.5mm should give me some versatility on larger fish species.

Subject

Author

Date

prime lens vs zoom lens (8)

fotofish

11/10/2002 6:06:26 PM

Prime baby, prime (+) (2)

drdread

11/12/2002 4:37:07 PM

Since I'm addicted to wide angle shooting (1)

fotofish

11/12/2002 5:53:21 PM

I shoot the Canon 20mm F 2.8 prime without diopter (+) (0)

E=MCscow

11/12/2002 11:45:58 PM

The 24mm is very sharp... (4)

scorpio_fish

11/13/2002 6:48:27 AM

17-35mm AFS == Sea&Sea and $$$ (3)

DrCraig

11/17/2002 8:20:20 AM

It was a little pricey.... (2)

scorpio_fish

11/18/2002 11:48:19 AM

But DID you sell your 20mm and 24mm? (1)

E=MCscow

11/21/2002 1:11:32 PM

No, I still have them, but... (0)

scoprio_fish

12/21/2002 7:34:12 AM

Post a reply:

Your name: Your email: Your password: (required only if you want your posting name validated) Subject: Message:   I want the last word (no follow-ups allowed) Picture to upload: