It seems to come from people who think that the singular of lenses is
lense. However, it is definitely a misspelling by British standards.
A word that isn't misspelt often, but is definitely misapplied often, is
zoom. The non-working K2 I have came with a zoom lens that looked like
a
Many people find it hard to distinguish between a zoom lens and a
telescopic lens. :-)
One Ebay hopeful was offering a 135mm wide-angle last week. And, yes, the
picture showed a genuine 135mm, not a 35mm.
John
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:27:00 +0100, John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Forbes
Subject: Re: Zooms (was Re: Looking for a lense)
Many people find it hard to distinguish between a zoom lens and a
telescopic lens. :-)
One Ebay hopeful was offering a 135mm wide-angle last week. And, yes, the
picture showed a genuine
There are also such things as Jamaican English, Australian English, Canadian
English, African American English, Scots English, Estuary English, ... I
could go on.
don't forget the Maccaroni-English, which I'm proud to speak!!
;)
Danilo
Spot on, Frank!
W.
--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was Wendy, actually.
And, not to put words in her mouth, but my
recollection is that Wendy
did not tell us that she thought sucks was vulgar
in a sexual way,
but rather simply poor English. I also seem to
recall that
John,
your description of changes in the English language sounds hideously
familiar. It echoes the developent we see in Norwegian as well. One
certainly doesn't have to be an old fart to disapprove.
Interestingly, one of the threats to our language is in fact the
influence of English. Hard
The incorrect use of the apostrophe in English is becoming ever more
prevalent. Greengrocers (fruit and veg. mongers) used to be the worst
culprits (eg: apple's instead of apples), so this abomination became
known as the grocer's apostrophe.
Now, like a virus, it has spread everywhere.
- Original Message -
From: John Forbes
Subject: Re: Looking for a lense
abomination became
known as the grocer's apostrophe.
grocers'?
: John Forbes Subject: Re: Looking
for a lense
abomination became known as the grocer's apostrophe.
grocers'?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus
On 5/27/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(It is true - excerpt from the Palace, with Prince George, his butler
Edmund Blackadder, a servant Baldrick, and Mr Samuel Johnston himself.
Whilst visiting my fam in Nova Scotia back in April, my sister treated
me to the Blackadder series, in
On the other hand MX's is correct, but I was corrected, incorrectly, so many
times I started using MXen. Did you ever think maybe they were selling Apple's
apples (GRIN)?
Actually punctuation is becoming a lost art. It is being replaced by machine
gun sentences. Like these. Almost gone are
On 29 May 2005 at 23:15, John Forbes wrote:
Now, like a virus, it has spread everywhere. The worst example, from Ebay (I
refuse to write eBay), is lense's!
From http://pages.ebay.com.au/help/community/tm.html
eBay name and logo are registered trademarks
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
On 29 May 2005 at 20:23, Graywolf wrote:
Actually punctuation is becoming a lost art. It is being replaced by machine
gun
sentences. Like these. Almost gone are those wonderful 300 word sentences of
the
19th century.
I try, LOL
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Of course the King James version! Is there any other? None in English,
of that I am certain. There are a number of failed attempts, but none
that are in any way readable. :-)
John
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:39:42 +0100, frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/27/05, Kostas
There are certainly some obsolete words, but it was the most read book in
English until fairly recently, so its influence (on the language) was
immense.
It is still the only version in English that can be read with pleasure.
IMHO.
John
On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:26:31 +0100, Kostas
Hi,
[..]
And, not to put words in her mouth, but my recollection is
that Wendy did not tell us that she thought sucks was
vulgar in a sexual way, but rather simply poor English. I
also seem to recall that her issue with the word was that it
was used ~all the time~ on this list, when
Hi,
Jamaican English is a diglossic language. This means that it comes in two
quite different forms, which are used in different situations.
Greek is also a diglossic language, with different forms used in speech
(demotic) and writing (katharevousa), and is often cited as the classic
example.
John Forbes wrote:
Species
See any good dictionary.
There is a word specie. It means coin, as opposed to paper, money
John
There is also the word speciation. Yet another anomaly.
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:18:57 +0100, mike wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
old
John Forbes wrote:
Yes, fish was not a good example. But sheep was.
A final s does not invariably indicate a plural, as any genius will
tell you. Many singular words of Latin origin end in s.
John
Indeed. But I was taught [in Grammar School 8-)] that the singular of
species was I
John Forbes wrote:
There are certainly some obsolete words, but it was the most read book
in English until fairly recently, so its influence (on the language)
was immense.
It is still the only version in English that can be read with
pleasure. IMHO.
John, have you seen the one called
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Jamaican English is a diglossic language. This means that it comes in two
quite different forms, which are used in different situations.
The article you cited, says (as do I) that Jamaican patois is *not*
English. It's not Jamaican English -- it's not English at all.
On 5/28/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You, you'd do the exact opposit, unless that's what you thought I wanted
you to do...
Exactly!
(I think)
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Of course the King James version! Is there any other? None in English,
of that I am certain. There are a number of failed attempts, but none
that are in any way readable. :-)
OK, I've stayed out of this so far, but...
There are literally dozens of Bible versions in English, each with
Thank you, Fred ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course the King James version! Is there any other? None in English,
of that I am certain. There are a number of failed attempts, but none
that are in any way readable. :-)
OK, I've stayed out of
Fred wrote:
Of course the King James version! Is there any other? None in English,
of that I am certain. There are a number of failed attempts, but none
that are in any way readable. :-)
OK, I've stayed out of this so far, but...
There are literally dozens of Bible versions in
Don't take me too seriously, Fred! (Note the smiley in my original
post.) Of course there are dozens of versions, and I've only thumbed
through a few of them. My point was that none of them (AFAIK) even
pretend to be good to read.
John
On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:35:43 +0100, Fred [EMAIL
I haven't seen it. Thanks for the suggestion; I'll keep my eyes peeled.
John
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:34:07 +0100, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
There
Languages are always changed by the uneducated. Ain't that a fact!
Words like route are variously pronounced in the US as root and rout depending upon where you live. Creek is pronounced creek or crick. Roof is pronounce roof or rufh. Etcetera.
However 50 years of TV is having more effect on
...BTW it may be the Australian Labor Party, but labour as a word
describing work is still spelt properly :-)
Dave
On 5/29/05, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day John,
The odd word here and there but mostly we follow the British example.
Dave
On 5/29/05, John Forbes [EMAIL
There's quite an interesting article here about language change:
http://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/change/
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 May 2005 17:56
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Looking for a lense
Oh, I see. Completely different words then. :-)
John
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:29:07 +0100, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...BTW it may be the Australian Labor Party, but labour as a word
describing work is still spelt properly :-)
Dave
On 5/29/05, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
will ye, nill ye; or be you willing, or be you unwilling. Talk about modern
corruptions. Subsituting he for ye sad headshake...
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
John Francis wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:48:45PM -0400,
Graywolf, I think it was a joke, or a rye comment. At least I hope it
was...
Graywolf wrote:
Species. IIRC both singular and pural forms are spelled the same.
However, one could look it up just as easily as asking on the list,
and find out a lot quicker.
graywolf
P. J. Alling wrote:
Graywolf, I think it was a joke, or a rye comment. At least I hope it
was...
I don't like whisky.
Graywolf wrote:
Species. IIRC both singular and pural forms are spelled the same.
However, one could look it up just as easily as asking on the list,
and find out a lot
Damned spell checker...
mike wilson wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Graywolf, I think it was a joke, or a rye comment. At least I hope
it was...
I don't like whisky.
Graywolf wrote:
Species. IIRC both singular and pural forms are spelled the same.
However, one could look it up just as
On 5/28/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damned spell checker...
It did it's job...
LOL
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Does that mean the comment was made while under the influence, or that it
was a wry comment?
Shel
From: P. J. Alling
Graywolf, I think it was a joke, or a rye comment. At least I hope it
was...
Spelt is a grain, and here, in the US, we spell spelt as spelled ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David Savage
...BTW it may be the Australian Labor Party, but labour as a word
describing work is still spelt properly :-)
]
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 5/28/2005 11:42:12 AM
Subject: RE: Looking for a lense
There's quite an interesting article here about language change:
http://www.pbs.org/speak/words/sezwho/change/
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From
Now that is a wry comment! (grin)
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
mike wilson wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Graywolf, I think it was a joke, or a rye comment. At least I hope it
was...
I don't like whisky.
Graywolf
It's not a British spelling.
Samuel Johnson taught us how to spell, in 1755. 250 yeeres ago this yeere,
in fact.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 May 2005 02:38
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Looking for a lense
I
--== WARNING: vulgar content ==--
Thank you all about the explaining of the hoover verb.
And forgive me for my next sentence.
So, the verb suck become from cocksucker or so, and is also
intended in a offensive way, as if one who sucks cocks is doing
something wrong or humilating.
I understand
: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE:
Looking for a lense
what is a LENSE?
Merriam-Webster calls it a variant of lens
William Robb
They must have given in.
A few years ago I was arguing with someone as to whether there was such
a word as LENSE.
I consulted ten dictionaries, including
On 27/5/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Samuel Johnson taught us how to spell, in 1755. 250 yeeres ago this yeere,
in fact.
(It is true - excerpt from the Palace, with Prince George, his butler
Edmund Blackadder, a servant Baldrick, and Mr Samuel Johnston himself.
Prince George:
Danilo,
In common, everyday usage in the USA, to say that 'Oh that sucks!' has
become a slang expression meaning 'Oh that is not pleasant' or 'Oh
that is an unfortunate outcome'. Few people think about the sexual
connection. Many people use the expression. Most people under 30
think nothing of
Graywolf wrote:
I would think it is an British variant of lens.
That would be why the ten dictionaries I consulted came from both sides
of the pond. (Although I think both Webster's and Oxford dictionaries
also show the spellings in the other dialect.) In any case, I grew up
with the
[..]
Same place I first encountered aperature, warrantee used in place of
warranty and loose as the opposite of find.
this one seems as an error I (as an Italian) could make, maybe the
poster(s) was (were) non-english at all..
loose it's similiar to lose, the opposite of find, warrantee sounds
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Graywolf wrote:
I would think it is an British variant of lens.
That would be why the ten dictionaries I consulted came from both sides
of the pond. (Although I think both Webster's and Oxford dictionaries
also show the spellings in the other dialect.) In any case, I
Hum..? I must be younger than I thought.
Besides using another word just give the other word the same negative
connotation.
We live on a world where: words are evil, things are evil, but what people do
is not their fault.
I would like to get off now grin.
graywolf
I have heard that unaccented proper English is very similar to Midwestern American English.
What is otherwise spoken in England is British English, except for those who speak Cockney. I've never
even seen that referred to as a dialect of English grin. The popular Australian version is
actually
In a message dated 5/27/2005 9:28:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then, Eleanor, you were the one who objected to folks using the word
suck, weren't you? Must make you feel powerful, seeing all the folks falling
over
backwards so not to offend your sensibilities.
Hi,
*no such thing as British spelling. There's American English, and
then English used by everybody else in the English speaking world.
British spelling implies the non-American version is the minority
version, where in fact the opposite is true.
And that's my pet rant, guys!
Well said, Bob ... as one travels around the US a great variety of English
can be encountered. That which is spoken in some parts of the south seems
strange to northerners, for example, and the English used in some
neighborhoods in San Francisco is different to one degree or another than
that
Today, there is also internet English, which is the international
language of for many who speak other languages at home. Someone
remarked at the use of lense for lens here, but that is becoming
common in many places on the net, as more and more people for whom
English is not their native
- Original Message -
From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: Looking for a lense
I have heard that unaccented proper English is very similar to Midwestern
American English.
Apparently, the brand of English spoken in mid wesern Canada (that's where
I'm from) is as uninflected as it comes
In a message dated 5/27/2005 11:13:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
British spelling, and British
English, and British English is a minority variety (I think Indian English
has the most speakers).
One of the reasons for the richness of English is that nobody has ever
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
*no such thing as British spelling. There's American English, and
then English used by everybody else in the English speaking world.
British spelling implies the non-American version is the minority
version, where in fact the opposite is true.
And that's my pet rant,
Well then, appologies where appologies are due.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/27/2005 9:28:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then, Eleanor, you were
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Graywolf) wrote:
I would think it is an British variant of lens.
It seems to come from people who think that the singular of lenses is
lense. However, it is definitely a misspelling by British standards.
--
PDML means I get more e-mail than
Graywolf wrote:
I have heard that unaccented proper English is very similar to
Midwestern American English. What is otherwise spoken in England is
British English, except for those who speak Cockney. I've never even
seen that referred to as a dialect of English grin. The popular
Australian
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
*no such thing as British spelling. There's American English, and
then English used by everybody else in the English speaking world.
British spelling implies the non-American version is the minority
version, where in fact the opposite is true.
And that's my pet rant,
Hi,
As I said in my response to Graywolf, I was strictly
referring to SPELLING and to my knowledge are two standards
of spelling in English.
Accents, slang, pronunciation and the use of different words
for the same object (e.g. lorry vs. truck) are not included
in spelling.
By
old fart mode on I have always considered it thus:
English is the language of England. The clue is in the name. English has
also for some time been the most popular language in the rest of the
British Isles. The language has been taken to other countries through the
vehicle of the
When I lived in Jamaica, the newspaper editors would have been horrified
at the suggestion that they were using any language other than the Queen's
English. I should imagine that the same holds true today. The language
used by educated Jamaicans contained one or two local words, but was
John Forbes wrote:
old fart mode on I have always considered it thus:
English is the language of England. The clue is in the name. English
has also for some time been the most popular language in the rest of
the British Isles. The language has been taken to other countries
through the
On Fri, 27 May 2005, mike wilson wrote:
How would you write the singular for species?
Species. Like fish, sheep...
Kostas
Species
See any good dictionary.
There is a word specie. It means coin, as opposed to paper, money
John
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:18:57 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
old fart mode on I have always considered it thus:
English is the language of England.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005, mike wilson wrote:
How would you write the singular for species?
Species. Like fish, sheep...
Kostas
Fish has the option of fishes. Not many words are the same in singular
and plural form, without options.
m
On Fri, 27 May 2005, mike wilson wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005, mike wilson wrote:
How would you write the singular for species?
Species. Like fish, sheep...
Kostas
Fish has the option of fishes.
I had never heard of it (and had been taught otherwise)
You haven't read your Bible, Kostas.
Five loaves, and two small fishes. From the parable of feeding the five
thousand.
John
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:48:09 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005, mike wilson wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri,
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:51:07 +0100, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the O.F. Brigade in July ;-)
Welcome aboard, sire.
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version:
On 5/27/05, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But then, Eleanor, you were the one who objected to folks using the word
suck, weren't you? Must make you feel powerful, seeing all the folks falling
over backwards so not to offend your sensibilities. That sucks, girl!
It was Wendy,
It's reassuring to know that you have some behaviour to modify, or not.
My behaviour was so ill, it died.
John
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:56:05 +0100, frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/26/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not pointing any fingers I'm relating the
On 5/27/05, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The French, and especially the Quebecians (I just KNOW I spelled that
wrong!) would agree! Talk about a national pet peeve!
Ah well...
Just for the record, in English they're Quebecers, and in French,
Quebecois (Kay-beck-wah).
I won't get
On Sat, 28 May 2005, John Forbes wrote:
You haven't read your Bible, Kostas.
Gasp! 12 years at school, compulsory theology course. Only in a
different language :-)))
However, I am not sure the Bible is a good grammar companion; isn't it
full of thys, thines and other obsolete species? Or has
On 5/27/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I am not sure the Bible is a good grammar companion; isn't it
full of thys, thines and other obsolete species? Or has it been
modernised?
There are many versions of the Bible out there, some are more modern
than others.
John Forbes wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:51:07 +0100, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the O.F. Brigade in July ;-)
Welcome aboard, sire.
John
Thanks, but...I think I have to qualify what I think an O.F. is!
I'll be 75.
That ought to qualify, I guess.
Before, I was a
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
As I said in my response to Graywolf, I was strictly
referring to SPELLING and to my knowledge are two standards
of spelling in English.
Accents, slang, pronunciation and the use of different words
for the same object (e.g. lorry vs. truck) are not included
in spelling.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005, John Forbes wrote:
You haven't read your Bible, Kostas.
Gasp! 12 years at school, compulsory theology course. Only in a
different language :-)))
However, I am not sure the Bible is a good grammar companion; isn't it
full of thys,
, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for a lense
I didn't realize sucks had a negative sexual connotation until about a
year
ago when people discussed it elsewhere on the Net. Then it was like, Do'h,
why
didn't I realize that??? Or maybe I subconsciously did. When one starts
using
slang
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for a lense
I didn't realize sucks had a negative sexual connotation until about a
year
ago when people discussed it elsewhere on the Net. Then it was like, Do'h
You, you'd do the exact opposit, unless that's what you thought I wanted
you to do...
frank theriault wrote:
On 5/26/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not pointing any fingers I'm relating the facts. Most males will
modify their behavior for a female, they
won't necessarily
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Kevin Waterson wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
I'm not sure if this exists in a Pentax mount, but you might have a look
at the following review:
http://www.euro-photo.net/cgi-bin/epn/info/equip_reviews/tamronaf28.asp
The lens
From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/05/26 Thu AM 07:25:20 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Looking for a lense
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
FA* 28-80 2.8 is the nearest that comes to mind. Doesn't come
Kevin Waterson wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/
S
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Kevin Waterson wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
Not quite:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens--smc_P-FA_28-70mm_F2.8/reqID--3028/subsection--Digital_35mm_zoom
http://www.tamron.com
Thursday, May 26, 2005, 11:09:14 AM, Kostas wrote:
KK On Thu, 26 May 2005, Kevin Waterson wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
There is a Tamron SP 2.8/28-105, but it hoovers.
Good light!
fra
There is a Tamron SP 2.8/28-105, but it hoovers.
what's the meaning of hoover??
this is what I find on dictionary:
Hoover, J(ohn) Edgar. 1895-1972.
American director of the FBI (1924-1972). He is remembered for
fighting gangsterism during the Prohibition era (1919-1933) and for a
Thursday, May 26, 2005, 12:07:05 PM, danilo wrote:
There is a Tamron SP 2.8/28-105, but it hoovers.
d what's the meaning of hoover??
d this is what I find on dictionary:
d Hoover, J(ohn) Edgar. 1895-1972.
[...]
g
No I didn't mean that one...
Hoovers as in sucks, from the vacuum cleaner
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
The only candidate I know of is the Tamron 28-105/2.8. It's fairly
pricey (around $700.00) and large (82mm filters!) and I've heard very
mixed comments about its optical
This one time, at band camp, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens--smc_P-FA_28-70mm_F2.8/reqID--3028/subsection--Digital_35mm_zoom
This is the baby I am looking for.
I have a 70-200mm 2.8 and I am looking
This one time, at band camp, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
Having decided on the 2.8 28-70mm Pentax lens, does anybody have
one they might like to part with?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
Democracy is two
: Looking for a lense
This one time, at band camp, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
Having decided on the 2.8 28-70mm Pentax lens, does anybody have
one they might like to part with?
Kind regards
Hoover is also the name of a vacuum carpet sweeper. If something
'hoovers, it sucks, as in It sucks a big, green weenie, meaning
something is really bad or of poor quality.
-P
danilo wrote:
There is a Tamron SP 2.8/28-105, but it hoovers.
what's the meaning of hoover??
28-80 FA 2.8?? Someone's been holding out on me!
mike wilson wrote:
From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/05/26 Thu AM 07:25:20 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Looking for a lense
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist
It isn't exactly 28-100, but it does sport a wallet busting price tag,
to match it's esteemed optical characteristics.
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite:
In your dreams...
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
Having decided on the 2.8 28-70mm Pentax lens, does anybody have
one they might like
I'm not pointing any fingers I'm relating the facts. Most males will
modify their behavior for a female, they
won't necessarily for a male.
Fred wrote:
(We had a complaint from a female member of the list some time ago about
the use of the s word).
1. She may not have been the only
what is a LENSE?
jco
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
