Re: Rambling load all right


"Canongirly" <me@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dh8n95$7fm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4337c24a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Canongirly wrote:
> >> Title says it all
> >> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in Bollox deleted
> > Ahhh yes... The well versed maiden (chuckle - likely to stay that way too)
> > shows her usual grasp of the language with this eloquently worded reply!
> >
> Better than the ALL of total load of *** you've ever written, or ever like
> to write you self important ill informed misguided little git.
>
> Get a life, or preferably, end the one you 're currently wasting.
>
>

Fine, you're right -- it's all fud.

So then why do Sigma, Tamron, Nikon, and yes, [lower your head respectfully],
even Canon, all use the phrase 'Optimized for digital SLR*' for SOME, but not
all of their products??? [google the exact phrase if you'd like -- and no, they
are not all sub-full-frame lenses being so described.]

'Splain please Lucy.....

[Could it be that producing an optimal image on a matte finish film base isn't
quite the same as producing an optimal image through a cover filter onto a
reflective silicon 'glass' surface?]


.