fredmiranda.com
Forum
Presentation Boards
Nature & Wildlife
Landscape Photography
City, Street & Architecture
People Photography
Black & White Photography
Macro & Still Life
Sports Photography
Wedding Photography
Digital Art, Smartphone & Abstract
Trip Location Advice & Meet-ups
Gear Talk
Canon Forum
Nikon Forum
Sony Forum
Leica & Alternative Gear
Fuji Forum
Film Is Not Dead
Micro Four Thirds Forum
Latest Photography News
General Gear-talk
Pro Digital Corner
Lighting & Studio Techniques
Post-processing & Printing
Forum & Miscellaneous
Assignments
Weekly Assignments
Monthly Assignments
Photo Critique
Buy & Sell
Photo Gear
Tech Tools
Tips for Safe Transactions
Guidelines & Rules
Join Today
What's New
Latest Posts
FM Gear Reviews
Assignment Winners
Weekly Assignments
Monthly Assignments
Category Winners
Landscape Photography
Nature & Wildlife
People Photography
Register
Login
Forum
Buy & Sell
What's New
Register
Login
fredmiranda.com
Login
Previous versions of
Tom K.
's message
#10104141
« 85 f/1.2 L II = Not worth it. »
Tom K.
Offline
Upload & Sell
:
Off
Re: 85 f/1.2 L II = Not worth it.
Monito wrote
:
Tom K. wrote
: article at the link below
http://goo.gl/3WKfq
Please do
not
paste opaque links. There is no need to do so here. Opaque links are often used to hide the URL for malware and spam sites. I don\'t usually click such links. The article is
not
at the link you posted. It redirects.
Here is the real link:
http://laurencekim.com/2011/05/04/american-dream-follow-up-how-much-does-a-lens-cost/
I have been using Google url shortened for years to post links. Yours is the first complaint.
Nov 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM
Previous versions of
Tom K.
's message
#10104141
« 85 f/1.2 L II = Not worth it. »