70 - 200 L USM question

Thanks! They look very clear, at least to me. Did you get the F2.8 or F4.0?

"Donald Gray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:05:26 GMT, "Robbie"
wrote:

Donald, I don't have the answer, but more of a request. Can you put one
of
the pics somewhere? I would like to see it.

Hi Robbie

I have just uploaded some of the first 70-200 f/4 L images that I have
taken.

I only had the lens couple of hours, so was still getting used to a
loooong lump!

See Gallery 3 at:
www.websilk.co.uk/digital


Cheers
Donald

"Robbie" wrote in message
news:mMnjf.2345$ob7.872@trnddc04...
Thanks! They look very clear, at least to me. Did you get the F2.8 or
F4.0?


"I have just uploaded some of the first 70-200 f/4 L images that I have
taken."

I would say the f/4. I guess top-posters don't read, they just look at the
shiny pictures.

Greg

"Donald Gray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:05:26 GMT, "Robbie"
wrote:

Donald, I don't have the answer, but more of a request. Can you put one
of
the pics somewhere? I would like to see it.

Hi Robbie

I have just uploaded some of the first 70-200 f/4 L images that I have
taken.

I only had the lens couple of hours, so was still getting used to a
loooong lump!

See Gallery 3 at:
www.websilk.co.uk/digital

Top posting just to be contentious!

Do you never make a mistake Greg?

I happen to be dyslexic and go word blind from time to time, it is
possible that Robbie has a similar problem...

Its a shame we can't ALL be perfect...

I don't want to open the old carrot of top vs bottom posting, but
personally until sarcastic lazy blokes like you learn to SNIP out
unwanted text, I will always give a mental thanks to top posters -
why? because I have enough intelligence to follow a top posted thread.
AND unsnipped threads often fill the screen - with the density of
postings, I don't have time to sod about looking for 'one liners'

Those who jump in with crass comments to point out the errors in
others like to be the net cops and only show themselves up.


On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:16:51 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:


"Robbie" wrote in message
news:mMnjf.2345$ob7.872@trnddc04...
Thanks! They look very clear, at least to me. Did you get the F2.8 or
F4.0?


"I have just uploaded some of the first 70-200 f/4 L images that I have
taken."

I would say the f/4. I guess top-posters don't read, they just look at the
shiny pictures.

Greg

[]

"Donald Gray" wrote in message
...
Top posting just to be contentious!

Do you never make a mistake Greg?

Of course. But if I'm so interested in a subject I sure as hell read the
reply with full attention.


I happen to be dyslexic and go word blind from time to time, it is
possible that Robbie has a similar problem...

Sure.


Its a shame we can't ALL be perfect...

I don't want to open the old carrot of top vs bottom posting, but
personally until sarcastic lazy blokes like you learn to SNIP out

I did snip. Sorry your panties are in such a tight knot that you didn't
notice.

unwanted text, I will always give a mental thanks to top posters -

I left the context there in case the OP thought I made it up.

why? because I have enough intelligence to follow a top posted thread.
AND unsnipped threads often fill the screen - with the density of
postings, I don't have time to sod about looking for 'one liners'


What...

Those who jump in with crass comments to point out the errors in
others like to be the net cops and only show themselves up.


....ever.

Greg

"Donald Gray" wrote in message
...

See Gallery 3 at:
www.websilk.co.uk/digital


Nice shots! Minor housekeeping issue: In the comment section under the
enlarged photos, you have the focal lengths reversed for the 84mm and 200mm
Norton shots.

My oversight.

I am constantly multitasking, and to be quite honest, I really don't focus
too much on etiquite with internet/newsgroup usage. Far too many other
important things to contend with. After I asked the question, I realized he
had the F4, but it is too much of a hassle to retract the question.

Get over it.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:14:34 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Donald Gray" wrote in message
.. .

See Gallery 3 at:
www.websilk.co.uk/digital


Nice shots!

Thanks1


Minor housekeeping issue: In the comment section under the
enlarged photos, you have the focal lengths reversed for the 84mm and 200mm
Norton shots.

Oh! Woe is unto me!

Thanks - I will try and correct it asap...

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:43:07 -0500, Bill wrote:

Donald Gray wrote:

[]
(I am waiting for some net cop to tel me that my 'signature does not
comply - I have two hyphens, a space and a line feed missing - who
really cares? )

I'm not a net cop, but putting the double hyphens just above the sig is
helpful for those who don't know - it's not just a common format, it's a
key for many newsreaders to snip the sig automatically when quoting
text.

Hi Bill
I am being very naughty - I did it deliberately just to wind a certain
drongo up!

Cheers

--
Donald

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:52:19 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:

[snip]
Greg

Greg

I just read your 'contributions' to this group.

I'm afraid to say that you ARE the weakest link...

Good Bye...

'PLONK'

Donald Gray wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:43:07 -0500, Bill wrote:


Donald Gray wrote:


[]

(I am waiting for some net cop to tel me that my 'signature does not
comply - I have two hyphens, a space and a line feed missing - who
really cares? )

I'm not a net cop, but putting the double hyphens just above the sig is
helpful for those who don't know - it's not just a common format, it's a
key for many newsreaders to snip the sig automatically when quoting
text.


Hi Bill
I am being very naughty - I did it deliberately just to wind a certain
drongo up!


Too funny, your sig is one word, your name. Hardly a worry and
virtually no one bothers to set just their name off as a sig.

Greg