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

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

Well said.

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

neilwood32 wrote in post #11300740
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)

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

richardfox wrote in post #11312115
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

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

Jon wrote in post #11314899
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.

redjamesg wrote in post #11315173
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.

redjamesg wrote in post #11315173
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.

Jon wrote in post #11314899
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!

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

Accessoire wrote in post #11316861
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

Wayne

absolutely!

WMS wrote in post #11316871
Then you obviously need a BIGGER lens

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...

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

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

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

Lens.