I always thought that the lens was more important than the camera as far as the image quality is concerned. My 35-80 EF Canon Zoom gave me good results but then it was on my old EOS 100. Now "gone digital". Chris http://www.chrisscrazyideas.co.uk http://www.chrissgallery.co.uk |> -----Original Message----- |> From: owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu |> [mailto:owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu]On Behalf Of andrew |> fildes |> Sent: 14 April 2003 12:16 |> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students |> Subject: Re: Searching for photographers - O'Brien, Thalman, Ingram |> |> |> >andrew fildes wrote: |> >> |> > |> >> |> >> 13. I've just spent a fortune on an EOS 1V/F5 and wondered if the |> >> Sigma 35-80 crap plastic zoom that they sold me with it is any good. |> >> I can't really afford much for a lens. It seems to work OK but I |> >> expected better from such an expensive camera. |> > > |> > |> > |> >BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! |> > |> >That's the spirit, Andrew! |> > |> >good one. |> > |> >r |> |> |> True story (well stronger than urban myth anyway in the local |> dealers) - it's legend that some pratt with more money than brain got |> ripped off while price comparison shopping in the city - a dealer put |> the zero grade 35-80EF Canon zoom on a 1n and gave him a great price! |> He was back a month later with his lousy snapshots, rather puzzled.... |> AndrewF |> |> |>
