Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
Thread started 28 Jul 2006 (Friday) 11:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Post the most ridiculous comments you've received with a big lens on!

 
this thread is locked
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,329 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Nov 18, 2010 02:25 |  #8821

tonylong wrote in post #11304792 (external link)
Yeah, but those who consume that "Cali Grass" get a whole new appreciation of the idea of "watching the paint dry":)!

Well said.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Cotmweasel
Senior Member
Avatar
995 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Allen, TX
     
Nov 19, 2010 09:04 |  #8822

Grass is known to the state of California to cause cancer....


-Dave
Equipment List:Canon Rebel XTi, Canon 7D, EF-S 18-55mm (Kit lens), EF 28-135mm IS, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM, Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 Planar T* (converted to canon), EF 70-200mm F/4 L, EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro, 430EX, MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash.
My flickr page http://www.flickr.com/​photos/cotmweasel/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Nov 19, 2010 09:14 |  #8823

neilwood32 wrote in post #11300740 (external link)
Yeah there is so much movement up there you have to be careful.

Strange how we got there over 30 years ago but we can't go back because we don't have the technology (or is it just me that finds that strange):rolleyes:

We have the technology. What nobody wants to admit is we don't have the money. It's called "funding" in govspeak.


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pleb1024
Senior Member
Avatar
313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Ex Christchurch, New Zealand. Now Atlanta, GA, USA
     
Nov 19, 2010 15:42 |  #8824

richardfox wrote in post #11312115 (external link)
We have the technology. What nobody wants to admit is we don't have the money. It's called "funding" in govspeak.

Its also the public level of 'acceptable risk' involved has declined - the public wont stand for an accident which kills the astronauts, even though the astronauts are much more knowledgeable about the risks involved, and are still willingly going. In order to make safer systems, more $$ are required.

Daniel


7DMkII | 7D | 450D | Canon 18-55 IS | Canon 55-250 | Canon 100-400L MkII | Canon 100-400L | Canon 24-105L | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | Tokina 11-16
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 226
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Nov 19, 2010 19:19 |  #8825

Yeah, but (back on topic, please, before it gets political) is your lens big enough to photograph the landing?


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
redjamesg
Senior Member
Avatar
757 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
     
Nov 19, 2010 20:19 |  #8826

Jon wrote in post #11314899 (external link)
is your lens big enough to photograph the landing?

I guess since my initial post spurted this sidetrack babble about the lunar landing, I'm the one who has to sort it out.

No my lens was not big enough to photograph anything on the moon, let alone capture the moon decent, which is why I was using my 2x ext.

That aside, the photos I got was so obstructed by this guy asking if I were shooting stills, that I didn't even get one decent exposure.

So there you have it folks, leave your conspiracy theories at home, theres nothing to back up any hint of anything, and since it has been proven by the mythbusters that we did land on the moon, there's no reason to make a deal out of it. So let it go and enjoy the fun this thread is giving in regard of funny comments on our overpriced gear.


Don't worry Ma'am, We're university students, We know what We're doing.
Stuff | Web (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Twitter (external link) | Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gkuenning
Goldmember
Avatar
1,471 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Claremont (near LA), California
     
Nov 19, 2010 20:39 |  #8827

redjamesg wrote in post #11315173 (external link)
That aside, the photos I got was so obstructed by this guy asking if I were shooting stills, that I didn't even get one decent exposure.

The genius was standing in front of your camera? What a pal.


Geoff
All I want is a 10-2000 f/0.5L with no distortion that weighs 100 grams, fits in my pocket, and costs $300. Is that too much to ask?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Nov 19, 2010 20:52 |  #8828

redjamesg wrote in post #11315173 (external link)
I guess since my initial post spurted this sidetrack babble about the lunar landing, I'm the one who has to sort it out.

No my lens was not big enough to photograph anything on the moon, let alone capture the moon decent, which is why I was using my 2x ext.

That aside, the photos I got was so obstructed by this guy asking if I were shooting stills, that I didn't even get one decent exposure.

So there you have it folks, leave your conspiracy theories at home, theres nothing to back up any hint of anything, and since it has been proven by the mythbusters that we did land on the moon, there's no reason to make a deal out of it. So let it go and enjoy the fun this thread is giving in regard of funny comments on our overpriced gear.

I KNOW we've been there. I was the guy that was dispatched to make sure the landing zone was free of any rubble before their arrival. Yes, I am green in color, and can ASSURE you the moon is made of cheese. ;)


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Nov 19, 2010 20:56 |  #8829

Jon wrote in post #11314899 (external link)
Yeah, but (back on topic, please, before it gets political) is your lens big enough to photograph the landing?

My lens is SO BIG that it actually has a gravitational field of its own that pulls the moon closer. You can see how big it is in the viewfinder when compared with the naked eye! That's my only explanation...

If I would have had that lens when the moon landing was attempted, they would not have been able to touch down as my lens would have pulled them back from the lunar surface!

No kidding! ;)


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Accessoire
Goldmember
1,119 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Nov 20, 2010 09:15 |  #8830

I get the whole, "whoa...that lens is bigger than you are."
and its not even that big...sheesh




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WMS
"Escargot on the Hoof"
Avatar
2,884 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Location: California, the land of the politicaly corrupt and innept
     
Nov 20, 2010 09:18 |  #8831

Accessoire wrote in post #11316861 (external link)
I get the whole, "whoa...that lens is bigger than you are."
and its not even that big...sheesh

Then you obviously need a BIGGER lens :cool:

Wayne


I'm just a simple maker of love charms and tokens,who occasionally takes a picture or two.
Gear list: more toys than I need, Fewer than I want.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Accessoire
Goldmember
1,119 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Nov 20, 2010 09:26 |  #8832

absolutely!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Nov 20, 2010 10:34 |  #8833

WMS wrote in post #11316871 (external link)
Then you obviously need a BIGGER lens :cool:

Wayne

Yep, just like this one! Too bad only 19 of the 1200mm EF lenses were made! B&H had a used one for $120,000, but apparently someone purchased it!

Oops, better hide my credit card bill on this one! ;)

I'd love to attach my 1.4x and 2x TC's on this one! I could probably see footprints on Pluto, and it's not even a planet any longer! I'll bet I could even see the sign that says "WARNING - END OF SOLAR SYSTEM".

These aren't the droids you're looking for...:cry:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cuypers1807
Intact?
Avatar
1,741 posts
Likes: 182
Joined May 2008
Location: Equally far from everything!
     
Nov 20, 2010 11:27 |  #8834

That photo looks like one of those trivia questions:
"Which weighs more the lens or the model?"


Joby
Flickr (external link)_________My Site (external link)___________Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ryant35
Goldmember
Avatar
4,366 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 250
Joined May 2007
Location: Cypress, CA
     
Nov 20, 2010 12:14 |  #8835

Cuypers1807 wrote in post #11317249 (external link)
That photo looks like one of those trivia questions:
"Which weighs more the lens or the model?"

Lens.



5DMK4, 7DMK2, 24-104mm f/4 L, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS MK2, 17-40mm f/4, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 35mm f/1.4,1.4X & 2X TC III 580EXII
www.ryantorresphotogra​phy.com (external link)Photography Facebook Fan Page (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,721,609 views & 0 likes for this thread
Post the most ridiculous comments you've received with a big lens on!
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sfchen
926 guests, 317 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.