Re: New 50mm Lens From Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    > [18-200mm]
    >
    >> Nope, it works per designed specification. And the VR works much
    >> better on this lens than it does with equivalent Canon lenses with
    >> IS.

    >
    > No wonder --- Canon has not yet released an 18-200mm class lens!
    > Ritachen, your snide remarks need an IQ booster.


    NONSENSE! I'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt since they released the
    highly problematic and recalled 24-105/4L IS. Even though Nikon's 18-200 is
    a piece of shit Canon's equivalent (24-105/4) is even worse.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >
    >> [18-200mm]
    >>
    >>> Nope, it works per designed specification. And the VR works much
    >>> better on this lens than it does with equivalent Canon lenses with
    >>> IS.

    >>
    >> No wonder --- Canon has not yet released an 18-200mm class lens!
    >> Ritachen, your snide remarks need an IQ booster.

    >
    > NONSENSE! I'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt since they released
    > the
    > highly problematic and recalled 24-105/4L IS. Even though Nikon's 18-200
    > is
    > a piece of shit Canon's equivalent (24-105/4) is even worse.


    Fatass, how many times have I told you that your trolls must have some basis
    in reality in order to hook unsuspecting posters into one of you series of
    endless "stupidfests." Find another lens to criticize, and try again.

    Gee, people might think you're stupid. Then again, just leave the 24-105 at
    home, grab that 50 and "foot zoom."
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kinon O'Cann wrote:

    >> NONSENSE! I'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt since they
    >> released the
    >> highly problematic and recalled 24-105/4L IS. Even though Nikon's
    >> 18-200 is
    >> a piece of shit Canon's equivalent (24-105/4) is even worse.

    >
    > Fatass, how many times have I told you that your trolls must have
    > some basis in reality in order to hook unsuspecting posters into one
    > of you series of endless "stupidfests." Find another lens to
    > criticize, and try again.


    Don't tell me you were stupid enough to buy the 24-105/4? You know, Canon
    will replace that for free with an "improved" one since it has been under a
    major recall for years?

    > Gee, people might think you're stupid. Then again, just leave the
    > 24-105 at home, grab that 50 and "foot zoom."


    Now we're talking! The "Fabulous 50 Foot Zoomer" is the lens to have.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008
    #3
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Fatass, how many times have I told you that your trolls must have
    >> some basis in reality in order to hook unsuspecting posters into one
    >> of you series of endless "stupidfests." Find another lens to
    >> criticize, and try again.

    >
    > Don't tell me you were stupid enough to buy the 24-105/4? You know, Canon
    > will replace that for free with an "improved" one since it has been under
    > a
    > major recall for years?


    heh, heh...

    I'm sitting in my office, looking at my wall, where a 4 x 6 foot poster
    hangs. A scene from the Maine coast taken with the horrible 24-105.
    Amazingly sharp, it's beautiful. Again, your fatass posts has no basis in
    reality. I expect more from you than bad pics.

    Amazingly, not even the 24mm wide end on a 5D can capture your entire ass.
    Well, maybe the left hand area area code, but not both.

    >
    >> Gee, people might think you're stupid. Then again, just leave the
    >> 24-105 at home, grab that 50 and "foot zoom."

    >
    > Now we're talking! The "Fabulous 50 Foot Zoomer" is the lens to have.


    Glad to see you sunken to aping Brett. Sheesh...
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> [18-200mm]


    >>> Nope, it works per designed specification. And the VR works much
    >>> better on this lens than it does with equivalent Canon lenses with
    >>> IS.


    >> No wonder --- Canon has not yet released an 18-200mm class lens!
    >> Ritachen, your snide remarks need an IQ booster.


    > NONSENSE!


    Yes, that's all you spout these days.

    In the beginning you were comical and I thought you might have
    been paid by Canon to discredit Nikon. But nowadays, talking to
    you is picking a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

    > I'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt since they released the
    > highly problematic and recalled 24-105/4L IS. Even though Nikon's 18-200 is
    > a piece of shit Canon's equivalent (24-105/4) is even worse.


    Yes, sure, *that's* Canon's equivalent!
    My lawyer will talk to your lawyer about your wantonly neglient
    assault and battery due to the paroxysms of laughter you continue
    to cause.

    -Wolfgang

    --
    Error: Buffer underrun while decrementing original-sender
    IQ estimate. Dumping core.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 24, 2008
    #5
  6. Kinon O'Cann wrote:

    >> Don't tell me you were stupid enough to buy the 24-105/4? You know,
    >> Canon will replace that for free with an "improved" one since it has
    >> been under a
    >> major recall for years?

    >
    > heh, heh...
    >
    > I'm sitting in my office, looking at my wall, where a 4 x 6 foot
    > poster hangs. A scene from the Maine coast taken with the horrible
    > 24-105. Amazingly sharp, it's beautiful. Again, your fatass posts has
    > no basis in reality. I expect more from you than bad pics.


    I'm sitting in my office, looking at my wall, where a 4 x 6 poster hangs. A
    scene of my hound taken with the horrible 18-70. Amazingly sharp, it's
    beautiful. Again, your fatass posts has no basis in reality. I expect more
    from you than bad pics.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 24, 2008
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: New 50mm Lens From Nikon

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    835
    Noons
    Feb 6, 2008
  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: New 50mm Lens From Nikon

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 24, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    337
    Kinon O'Cann
    Jan 25, 2008
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,132
    Paul Furman
    Jan 15, 2009
  4. Bob Williams

    Re: 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8

    Bob Williams, Jan 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    493
    David Ruether
    Jan 13, 2009
  5. M-M
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    31,334
Loading...

Share This Page