At 05:16 PM 4/3/00 EDT, Warren wrote:
>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
The story I heard is that it was the 180/2
Paul
< 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 >
|