Like I said previously, there is a physical age which we have zero control over, and there is a "mental" age which we usually have total control over. I think in this case, the physical and mental ages are out of sync.
Shame on you, sir.
This will be my last post on this thread - I promise.
But the unwelcome and unwarranted personal attack by one responder cannot go unanswered.
When I posted my original idea about a 105-200 f/4 IS L lens to pair with the 24-105 f/4 IS L, I set forth several parameters to set it apart from the 70-200 f/2.8, the newer 70-300 L and, to a limited extent, the set of f/4 versions of the 70-200.
I was suggesting the development of an L lens that was similar to the 24-105 in all ways except, of course, its range. It needed to be light and small (in the same manner as the 24-105 distinguished itself from the 24-70). It needed to have a barrel that extended - to make it shorter and easier to fit into a relatively small camera bag with the 24-105 and a full frame body. It needed a constant f/4 - like the 24-105. It would need to be in the same price range as the 24-105 and it would certainly be logical that it would cost less than the 70-200 f/4 IS because, well, the barrel extended and it lacked the additional range of 70-104. And, finally, as I was seeking to match it to the 24-105 perhaps in a two lens kit to accompany the 5DIII, ideally it would be black. So, my wish list included six key features: smaller, lighter, cheaper, constant f/4, shorter (barrel that extends) and black.
When the first responses came in, it was evident my idea would not gather the “large audience” I had hoped for. As to those first responders who already owned an f/4 70-200, I was not surprised. I figured when I launched the idea that no one who already had an f/4 70-200 would have any interest in the 105-200 no matter what its other features.
By the second or third page it started to become obvious that, while I initially had thought it was just an unpopular idea (ya think? Not a single person liked it!), it eventually became evident that misunderstanding of the idea was, at least as to some responders, at work. That misunderstanding (e.g. people thought I was only looking for a cheaper lens or a black lens or a smaller lens or whatever) was either the product of responders only reading a few of the responses or not reading the initial post or just looking to make fun of the idea (and I am really fine with the latter - as I have stated).
So, to make certain misunderstanding was not affecting the majority of responders, I made every effort to make certain that they did understand the entire idea - all six parameters. I had limited success delivering that message and no success convincing anyone that the lens might fill someone’s (other than I/Me/Mine) need. So be it, no big deal.
I was not the least bit annoyed or offended that a large number of responses just made fun of the idea. They pretended I was only interested in a black lens or whatever. Those types of comments happen all the time on this forum and, if you can’t handle them, you have no business posting anything on this forum.
Then came a personal attack from someone I can only perceive to be a frustrated responder. And I am puzzled by that response. Then this occurred to me: The only thing more annoying to a group of boys beating up a kid on the playground who refuses to cry “Uncle” is when that victim laughs at - or with - his attackers.
My idea - not me personally - got beat up all over the playground. And I chose to laugh with - not at - all of the responders. While I did try to clear up the misunderstandings, eventually it got to the point where there was no point in trying. The thread lost all its seriousness by the second or third page. So, all I could do was laugh with everyone else and admit - as I did on more than one of my responses - that the idea was dead in the water. But, I did not cry “Uncle” and I still think it’s a good idea. And, one of the responders evidently thought that placed me squarely in the Me - Me - Me generation. Honestly, I had to do a Google search to find out what that was. When he asked my age, I thought I would play along for the fun of it - naively thinking his motives were not as nasty as they turned out to be.
If there’s any lesson here, and I hope on this point I do speak for a “large audience” who participate in this forum, it’s this - let’s try to avoid personal attacks that - intended or not - will have the chilling effect of keeping people from suggesting new ideas in this or any other forum. It’s absolutely fine to make fun of dumb ideas but please don’t cross the line into personal attacks. They may make the responder feel good but they are a disservice to the rest of us.
Regarding the dreaded 105-200 f/4 IS - yes, it is an apparently universally unpopular idea. But, other than the new fish eye zoom, Canon has not issued a truly new full frame zoom range EF lens (L or otherwise) since the 24-105 in 2005. All the lenses since then have been either refinements of existing ranges (ok, the 75-300 became a 70-300 or a 70-300L but the range was nearly identical), versions II or III of otherwise successful lenses, adding IS etc. And I do recognize that hugely expensive lenses are in the pipeline - e.g. EF 200-400.
