Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tacky. Look at the font used! Looks like the sub-$100 silver crap
that Tamron turned out in the 1980s. At least the L-glass doesn't
look like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_is_c16/

Let me get this straight - the font of the writing on the lens bothers you?
I actually don't know whether to laugh at you or despair for you. A
combination of the two will probably suffice.

Lasko wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tacky. Look at the font used! Looks like the sub-$100 silver crap
that Tamron turned out in the 1980s. At least the L-glass doesn't
look like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_is_c16/

Let me get this straight - the font of the writing on the lens
bothers you? I actually don't know whether to laugh at you or
despair
for you. A combination of the two will probably suffice.

People for whom a camera is a status symbol, with style counting for
more than performance, are to be pitied, both for their lack of self
confidence that they must bolster with symbols, and for their
inability to achieve the level of success which would allow them to
use a supermodel and a Lamborghini for that purpose.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:51:26 +0100, "Lasko"
wrote:


"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tacky. Look at the font used! Looks like the sub-$100 silver crap
that Tamron turned out in the 1980s. At least the L-glass doesn't
look like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_is_c16/

Let me get this straight - the font of the writing on the lens bothers you?
I actually don't know whether to laugh at you or despair for you. A
combination of the two will probably suffice.


My advice is to laugh. That's the only reason I know of to read his
posts.

Lasko wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

Tacky. Look at the font used! Looks like the sub-$100 silver crap
that Tamron turned out in the 1980s.

Let me get this straight - the font of the writing on the lens bothers you?
I actually don't know whether to laugh at you or despair for you. A
combination of the two will probably suffice.

That's high praise from our Rich. Anti-Canon fanatic as he
in, and he finds no other faults with the lens (even though
it's made out of plastic[1]). Must be a world class lens!

(But then, what does Rich know? He doesn't own a camera.)

-Wolfgang

[1] Like Rich's keyboard ...

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:35:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Oct 16, 3:57*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: wrote:
: Lasko wrote:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: Tacky. *Look at the font used! *Looks like the sub-$100 silver crap
: that Tamron turned out in the 1980s.
: Let me get this straight - the font of the writing on the lens bothers
: you? I actually don't know whether to laugh at you or despair for you.
: A combination of the two will probably suffice.
:
: That's high praise from our Rich. *Anti-Canon fanatic as he
: in, and he finds no other faults with the lens (even though
: it's made out of plastic[1]). *Must be a world class lens!
:
: Actually, performance-wise, the lens is a dog too, ...

How would you know? You haven't used the lens, and you don't own a dog.

Bob

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 2:24 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Lasko wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tacky. Look at the font used! Looks like the sub-$100 silver crap
that Tamron turned out in the 1980s. At least the L-glass doesn't
look like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_is_c16/

Let me get this straight - the font of the writing on the lens
bothers you? I actually don't know whether to laugh at you or
despair
for you. A combination of the two will probably suffice.

People for whom a camera is a status symbol, with style counting for
more than performance

Rubbish, but having to use something everyday that just looks bad is
not that great a deal.
Or maybe you'll buy one of those new, red Panasonic G1s?

I hope it doesn't bother you that I read this newsgroup in Arial. You strike
me as a Times New Roman sort of guy.

dwight

Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:35:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:

: Actually, performance-wise, the lens is a dog too, ...

How would you know? You haven't used the lens, and you don't own a dog.

He doesn't need to know, he's got an OPINION.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:35:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Actually, performance-wise, the lens is a dog too, ...

How would you know? You haven't used the lens, and you don't own a
dog.

He doesn't need to know, he's got an OPINION.

-Wolfgang

I agree with him. If you pay for a Canon lens you are entitled to
something which lives up to the company name. The font looks like a toy
font, to me. Perhaps they only use it on their toy lenses?

David

David J Taylor wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

He doesn't need to know, he's got an OPINION.

I agree with him. If you pay for a Canon lens you are entitled to
something which lives up to the company name. The font looks like a toy
font, to me. Perhaps they only use it on their toy lenses?

Nice to know you only have a problem with the font used.

Care to name any 18-2xx lens that isn't, in the end, a toy?

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David J Taylor
wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

He doesn't need to know, he's got an OPINION.

I agree with him. If you pay for a Canon lens you are entitled to
something which lives up to the company name. The font looks like a
toy font, to me. Perhaps they only use it on their toy lenses?

Nice to know you only have a problem with the font used.

Care to name any 18-2xx lens that isn't, in the end, a toy?

-Wolfgang

Even toy lenses can be very handy.

David