Jun 9, 2011, 22:46
Jun 10, 2011, 11:34
Phew...only Nikon gear though...no harm done.

Seriously though, looks like the lady really was determined and sustained.
"Angry rage". I wonder what other sorts there are....

Seriously though, looks like the lady really was determined and sustained.
"Angry rage". I wonder what other sorts there are....
Jun 10, 2011, 12:18
It makes the 600mm in a swamp incident seem pretty mild.
The machine translation of the original page is a mess, but I see in the EXIF that the photos of the destruction were taken with a Canon 40D and 24-105/4L lens. I can't help but wonder if there's more to this story than what we're seeing.
Maybe I should hide Penny's hammer collection, just in case?
The machine translation of the original page is a mess, but I see in the EXIF that the photos of the destruction were taken with a Canon 40D and 24-105/4L lens. I can't help but wonder if there's more to this story than what we're seeing.
Maybe I should hide Penny's hammer collection, just in case?
Jun 10, 2011, 12:20
(And, as an afterthought, how does this affect the "I used a filter and it saved my lens" side of the perpetual Protective Filters argument?)
Jun 10, 2011, 23:34
Zig Wrote:Seriously though, looks like the lady really was determined and sustained.Yeah, she even went to the trouble of cracking the distance scales...

Anyone got a tally on the grand total?
Jun 11, 2011, 06:41
The cost to replace them with all new lenses â I'd take the 16-35 in place of the 17-35, 24-70 to replace both (?) 28-70's, and stay with the 80-200 and TC14 â the total would be about $4700 USD at B&H.
Of course, UV/clear filters will add to the total price, as would a couple of Pelican cases with heavy padlocks, which might be the better protection.
Of course, UV/clear filters will add to the total price, as would a couple of Pelican cases with heavy padlocks, which might be the better protection.
Jun 11, 2011, 09:05
I hope this isn't the guy that I sold my 80-200 to...
Jun 13, 2011, 15:47
My, half a Leica-worth then!