ML Archiv: Re: [OM] Re NASA lens

Subject:	Re: [OM] Re NASA lens
From:	WKato@xxxxxxx
Date:	Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:16:54 EDT

In a message dated 00-04-03 15:13:48 EDT, you write:

> I am wrong, it is not the 180/2, must be the f2.8.
>  
>  Giles

Why not use the 180/2 when cost is no object to NASA and it's weightless 
(other than the $25,000 per ounce cost of getting it into orbit) ?  <gg>

Warren

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, (continued) Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, gary edwards Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Garth Wood [OM] One last question, Tom Scales Re: [OM] One last question, Volkhart Baumgaertner Re: [OM] One last question, Giles Re: [OM] One last question, John Hermanson Re: [OM] One last question, Charles Sdunek Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Mark Marr-Lyon Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Paul Wallich Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Dirk Wright Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, WKato <= Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Paul D. Farrar Re: [OM] Re NASA lens found them!, Acer V Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Giles Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, John A. Prosper Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Gary Reese

Previous by Date:	[OM] Looking for om equipment, blwsings
Next by Date:	Re: [OM] In the studio (of sorts) - selective response, WKato
Previous by Thread:	Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Dirk Wright
Next by Thread:	Re: [OM] Re NASA lens, Paul D. Farrar
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]