Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 589640859; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:34:30 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.223 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003021522360290603 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:36:02 GMT
Received: from computer ([66.222.145.239]) by priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id 
          for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:34:20 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: 50-500mm Sigma Lens
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:34:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

chris.kenward{at}fanciful.org wrote:

>
> "Larry N. Bolch"  wrote:
>> Since you ask, I will share my thought processes on
>> acquiring equipment.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> Now, of course, if you are buying a lens as jewelery, or
>> as a status symbol, or as a phallic symbol, none of the
>> above applies. I have no interest in photo equipment for

> Fortunately I am no kid, nor do I buy lenses for the phallic or status
> related reasons you talk of above. I love animal and bird photography
> and want to do a lot more of both. For this I figure I need the longer
> lens. I realise I am going to need to make allowances for the lack of
> light and, if this is so much the case in the UK that I end up not using
> the lens as often as I feel necessary to justify the expense, I will
> divest myself of it and look around for something which fits the bill a
> little better.

;-)

That came from a memory back when Fidonet was king. Back in the early '90s a
young fellow showed up on line and wanted to know what was the longest lens
possible for the least amount of money. He was saving his money and had
almost enough to buy a camera body, but would not buy until he found out the
longest lens he could get. He had no photographic experience at all.

We asked him what he planned to use it for. We tried to explain that long
lenses were difficult to use and limited in utility. He seemed quite
defensive in his replies. Eventually he got the money together and bought
something in the 400mm - 600mm range. A few days later, he was back on line
in a rage. His first batch of pictures were a batch of blurs and he was
about to take a stripe out of the companies hide for selling him such a
sucky lens!

We reminded him of the past discussions, and made suggestions on how to use
this thing. I would guess he saw himself swaggering in front of the dumb
photographers with their little lenses and bowing in awe to him - who knows?

He pretty much faded out about that time.

larry!
ICQ 76620504
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5