RE: [Leica] long lens tests

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Phong, 

As one fool to another, there is a new version of the Canon 400mm a type II
which is relatively new.  It is suppose to be superb.
I think like anyone else I am entitled to say things as an opinion even
thogh some folks that are thin skinned may find them caustic.

Peter K

> ----------
> From: 	phong[SMTP:phong@doan-ltd.com]
> Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: 	Friday, February 19, 1999 11:09 PM
> To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: 	Re: [Leica] long lens tests
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
>     If I remember correctly, a couple of years ago Ted had posted
>     some experiences using the Canon long lenses, specifically the
>     400 2.8 lens, a couple of years ago I would not assume as you
>    do that Ted speak  without personal experience.  Who would he
>     try to impress ?  You ?
> 
>     There are many fools on this list;  you are a bigger fool to try to
>     correct their posts;  I am the biggest fool to even reply to yours.
>     I just don't care for the tone of your orginal post.  You could just
>     ask Ted if he had used Canon lenses.
> 
> - Phong
> :-(
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:45:35 -0800
> > From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Leica] long lens tests
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > Not difficult, just speaking the truth. All I pointed out is that some
> LUGs
> > are ready to automatically give an opinion of a lens they have never
> used.
> > I have learned my lesson, and shut up when I need to.  But your comment
> at
> > the end of your post does not detract from the fact that you and Ted
> > indicate the Leica 400mm can't be beat, even without trying one.  Kind
> of
> > like owning an car and saying you know the one you drive is better than
> the
> > one in the showroom.
> >
> > Peter K.
> 
>