M Vers wrote: Breitling65 wrote:
Read 135L as I suggested, it has FF review. Also prefer not to talk to Vers, dono why I did this.
Oh, I could have sworn you compared it to the 100/2.8... Breitling65 wrote:
It is not Highly Recommended as any close competitors are (135L, 100mm macro non-L),
Give it a rest...
Again, you are having problems understanding photozone review and verdicts? I am not their employee, contact them and ask and argue. Tell them about your need of \"electronic tripod\" and how good IS for you and why they didn\'t do Highly Recommended word for it.
M Vers wrote: Breitling65 wrote:
Read 135L as I suggested, it has FF review. Also prefer not to talk to Vers, dono why I did this.
Oh, I could have sworn you compared it to the 100/2.8... Breitling65 wrote:
It is not Highly Recommended as any close competitors are (135L, 100mm macro non-L),
Give it a rest...
Again, you are having problems understanding photozone review and verdicts? I am not their employee, contact them and ask and argue. Tell them about your need of \"electronic tripod\" and how good IS for you is and why they didn\'t do Highly Recommended word for it.
M Vers wrote: Breitling65 wrote:
Read 135L as I suggested, it has FF review. Also prefer not to talk to Vers, dono why I did this.
Oh, I could have sworn you compared it to the 100/2.8... Breitling65 wrote:
It is not Highly Recommended as any close competitors are (135L, 100mm macro non-L),
Give it a rest...
Again, you are having problems understanding photozone review and verdicts? I am not their employee, contact them and ask and argue.
Oct 17, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Previous versions of Breitling65's message #7652814 « 100L macro - low scores in photozone tests »
