On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> Thomas wrote:
>
> >
> > I have only one comment to make: IT'S NOT FAIR !!!! ;)
> >
> > It it's in any kind of usefull shape, then you've done quite well. If it's
> > better than just "usefull"...well, then we're in the "not fair" department
> > ;)
>
> Well it's not mint, has a small amount of paint missing from the aperture
> ring and a small scratch on the outside of the hood, small wear mark on the
> tripod mount and on detailed examination I found a few small spots of fungus
> inside, so it'll be going in for a clean in about a week.
>
Well, ok - not mint.....still usefull. Let's see, insignificant cosmetic
wear - doesn't subtract much (considering that I the lens is made for
being used, not for being looked at). Spots of fungus that require
detailed examination sounds like something that can be removed.
Heck, I think that even if you sent it to some professional
defungusification ;) the total cost would *still* make it qualify as a
fang....
> >
> > Congratulations on what, I think, definitely is a fang. Do we get to see
> > some of the final photos, eventually? ;)
> >
>
> I might try to use it for the current TOPE.
>
Please do - it would be cool ;)
I've got a trip comming up, so I'll try to talk my 300/4.5 into producing
something from that, worthy of the TOPE.
--thomas
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|