At 04:56 PM 5/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 PCACala@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>|Folks:
>|
>|This lens is so exceptional I had to post the results right to the list. I
>|couldn't believe my eyes! Let the data and summaries speak for themselves.
>|And don't miss what happens when you shoot with an OM-1n instead of a OM-4.
>
>If I recall correctly, this lens was judged superior in sharpness to
>the legendary Canon 200/1.8L. It would be easier walking around with
>a 180/2 though---about half as easy, in fact.
You mean **twice as easy**!
**Think**, people, **Think**. :>)
George
Explanantion: (Hint: Note the smiley face.) This was meant to serve a double
purpose: 1) Skewer sarcastically one of our late W. Sommerwecks' more well-used
admonitions to our thechnically challenged readership and 2) use this to
humorously point out that the poster actually used the inverse multiplicative
of the weight ratio rather than the reciprocal least common denominator of the
ratio-less weight carrying capacity of the average person while stalking
ornithods in overcast weather, after lunch.
So, please **think** people. I've been teaching this humorousityness for 67
years. I hope it's not wasted on the likes of you ...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|