EOS re 1.6X telephoto

[Peter Hancock]

Henning wrote:

>I believe I explained why there's no point and no
>advantage to designing telephoto lenses for
>smaller senor cameras.

>No size advantage. No weight advantage. No cost
>advantage. Just a smaller market.

>The 'wasting half the light' argument doesn't
>fly. All long lenses could cover larger areas,
>but are baffled to avoid too much extraneous
>light bouncing around. For the smaller sensor
>sizes tighter baffels could be installed, but the
>EF lenses are already well baffled, so that isn't
>going to gain you much.

OK, I guess I simply don't understand the optics.  Nevertheless, it's
clear that if you simply compare like for like in terms of equivalent
reach, the small format is lighter, smaller and cheaper:

Sigma 70-210 f2.8, full frame: 1345g; 86.6 x 184mm; filter 77mm; price
620 pounds
Sigma 50-150 f2.8, digital sensor: 770g; 76.3 x 135mm; filter 67mm;
price 450 pounds

I know which I'd rather carry.  As I originally said, Pentax have also
announced two new upmarket long zooms for digital.  It'll be interesting
to see whether Canon hold their line.

Peter



--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind.

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[James B.Davis]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:07:39 -0000, "Peter Hancock" <p.j.b.hancock@...>
wrote/replied to:

>Sigma 70-210 f2.8, full frame: 1345g; 86.6 x 184mm; filter 77mm; price
>620 pounds
>Sigma 50-150 f2.8, digital sensor: 770g; 76.3 x 135mm; filter 67mm;
>price 450 pounds
>
>I know which I'd rather carry.  As I originally said, Pentax have also
>announced two new upmarket long zooms for digital.  It'll be interesting
>to see whether Canon hold their line.

I think it's hard to compare lenses like that. Differences like build quality
etc can make a huge difference you can't appreciate in just the raw specs above.
Plus, the zoom range beyond 150 always makes a much longer, bigger lens that is
obviously going to be heavier and use a larger filter. But I do understand where
you're coming from there.

And let's not forget newer technology and plastics etc can produce a lighter
lens even on the same design, so it's just hard to compare, the 50-150 obviously
is a much newer tech and that's one reason why it's lighter. But of course Sigma
designed it for the 1.6x format which is looking for lighter and cheaper lenses,
so that was their goal making it. It's little wonder it turned out that way.

And it would be great to have optimized lenses for the 1.6x format in real Canon
L lenses, but I can understand the amount of research and money developing them
might not pay off for Canon. After all, Canon has the full frame DSLRs.

You might want to look into the Olympus lineup, I think they are getting more
serious about the smaller sensor and lens lineup.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Bob W8IMO]

Peter Hancock wrote:

>OK, I guess I simply don't understand the optics.  Nevertheless, it's
>clear that if you simply compare like for like in terms of equivalent
>reach, the small format is lighter, smaller and cheaper:
>
>Sigma 70-210 f2.8, full frame: 1345g; 86.6 x 184mm; filter 77mm; price
>620 pounds
>Sigma 50-150 f2.8, digital sensor: 770g; 76.3 x 135mm; filter 67mm;
>price 450 pounds
>
>I know which I'd rather carry.  As I originally said, Pentax have also
>announced two new upmarket long zooms for digital.  It'll be interesting
>to see whether Canon hold their line.
>
>Peter
>
>  
>

Whoa!  What you are saying here is like saying, my Ferrri 599 uses too
much gas so I think I'll drive my Vespa.

How does a 70-210  or a 50-150 compare to a 100-400 ?????

Bob




>
>  
>


--

                           /////
                          ( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@...------
Curiosity killed the cat although I was a suspect for a while........
   



*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

At 10:07 AM +0000 11/30/06, Peter Hancock wrote:

>Henning wrote:
>
>>I believe I explained why there's no point and no
>>advantage to designing telephoto lenses for
>>smaller senor cameras.
>
>>No size advantage. No weight advantage. No cost
>>advantage. Just a smaller market.
>
>>The 'wasting half the light' argument doesn't
>>fly. All long lenses could cover larger areas,
>>but are baffled to avoid too much extraneous
>>light bouncing around. For the smaller sensor
>>sizes tighter baffels could be installed, but the
>>EF lenses are already well baffled, so that isn't
>>going to gain you much.
>
>OK, I guess I simply don't understand the optics.  Nevertheless, it's
>clear that if you simply compare like for like in terms of equivalent
>reach, the small format is lighter, smaller and cheaper:
>
>Sigma 70-210 f2.8, full frame: 1345g; 86.6 x 184mm; filter 77mm; price
>620 pounds
>Sigma 50-150 f2.8, digital sensor: 770g; 76.3 x 135mm; filter 67mm;
>price 450 pounds
>
>I know which I'd rather carry.  As I originally said, Pentax have also
>announced two new upmarket long zooms for digital.  It'll be interesting
>to see whether Canon hold their line.
>
>Peter

The difference in size and weight of those two lenses is completely
due to the longest focal lengths of 210mm vs. 150mm.

Look at it this way: a 210mm lens of f/2.8 aperture has to have at
least a 75mm diameter piece of glass in front (210mm/2.8=75mm). A
150mm lens of f/2.8 has to have at least a 54mm diameter piece of
glass.

If the lenses had essentially the same design, the front element
would have 1.4 times the diameter, 2x the area and 2.75 times the
weight, just from simple geometry.

A 150mm lens is less than 3/4 as long as a 210mm lens. Figure it out
- a much bigger piece(s) of glass significantly further out for the
70-210.

No wonder it's a lot bigger, heavier, more expensive etc. Has nothing
to do with coverage.

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[James B.Davis]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:50:03 -0500, Bob <w8imo@...> wrote/replied to:

>
>Whoa!  What you are saying here is like saying, my Ferrri 599 uses too
>much gas so I think I'll drive my Vespa.
>
>How does a 70-210  or a 50-150 compare to a 100-400 ?????

That's right Bob, driving the Ferrari to get groceries is just dumb!

No idea how they compare, don't have those two other lenses.

In the end it's all about what your purpose is in shooting photos. If you're
shooting for National Geographic for example you'll be carrying the best and a
wide selection too, but if you're like me and like to hike lightly and take some
nice photos you'll go for a tele zoom and a wide angle which can do almost
anything you'll want to. You'll leave the 135/f2 L at home when hiking or
picking up groceries.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[James B.Davis]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:57:54 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
wrote/replied to:

>A 150mm lens is less than 3/4 as long as a 210mm lens. Figure it out
>- a much bigger piece(s) of glass significantly further out for the
>70-210.
>
>No wonder it's a lot bigger, heavier, more expensive etc. Has nothing
>to do with coverage.

I think that is part of it, but the other part is the 150mm zoom was made for
the smaller sensor. It wouldn't make sense to make it heavy or large. They set
out to make it as compact and light as possible.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Skip Middleton]

Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Hancock" <p.j.b.hancock@...>
To: <eos@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:07 AM
Subject: EOS re 1.6X telephoto



Henning wrote:

>I believe I explained why there's no point and no
>advantage to designing telephoto lenses for
>smaller senor cameras.

>No size advantage. No weight advantage. No cost
>advantage. Just a smaller market.

>The 'wasting half the light' argument doesn't
>fly. All long lenses could cover larger areas,
>but are baffled to avoid too much extraneous
>light bouncing around. For the smaller sensor
>sizes tighter baffels could be installed, but the
>EF lenses are already well baffled, so that isn't
>going to gain you much.

OK, I guess I simply don't understand the optics.  Nevertheless, it's
clear that if you simply compare like for like in terms of equivalent
reach, the small format is lighter, smaller and cheaper:

Sigma 70-210 f2.8, full frame: 1345g; 86.6 x 184mm; filter 77mm; price
620 pounds
Sigma 50-150 f2.8, digital sensor: 770g; 76.3 x 135mm; filter 67mm;
price 450 pounds

I know which I'd rather carry.  As I originally said, Pentax have also
announced two new upmarket long zooms for digital.  It'll be interesting
to see whether Canon hold their line.

Peter

By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce
lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't follow.
Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm
filter size and $2199.95
Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99.
See, other things enter in to the equation.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

>On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:57:54 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
>wrote/replied to:
>
>>A 150mm lens is less than 3/4 as long as a 210mm lens. Figure it out
>>- a much bigger piece(s) of glass significantly further out for the
>>70-210.
>>
>>No wonder it's a lot bigger, heavier, more expensive etc. Has nothing
>>to do with coverage.
>
>I think that is part of it, but the other part is the 150mm zoom was made for
>the smaller sensor. It wouldn't make sense to make it heavy or large. They set
>out to make it as compact and light as possible.
>
>--
>Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
>http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
>Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
>1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
>STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
>*

Making it for the smaller sensor doesn't really allow making it
smaller. That's the whole point.

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[James B.Davis]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:22:29 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
wrote/replied to:

>Making it for the smaller sensor doesn't really allow making it
>smaller. That's the whole point.

Maybe not, but when the goal is to have something smaller and lighter, there are
ways of doing it. Like more plastic, thinner walled tubes, etc.

You'll never convince me though that if the optical circle doesn't need to be so
big, that the glass lenses used can't all be a bit smaller. Why do you think
medium format lenses are all so fat?

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

At 4:42 PM +0900 12/1/06, James B.Davis wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:22:29 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
>wrote/replied to:
>
>>Making it for the smaller sensor doesn't really allow making it
>>smaller. That's the whole point.
>
>Maybe not, but when the goal is to have something smaller and
>lighter, there are
>ways of doing it. Like more plastic, thinner walled tubes, etc.

...which has nothing to do with the format. Canon has done a great
job of reducing the size and weight of their 300/2.8IS over the years
while not even resorting to plastics or, as far as I know, reducing
the structural rigidity of the lens.

>You'll never convince me though that if the optical circle doesn't
>need to be so
>big, that the glass lenses used can't all be a bit smaller. Why do you think
>medium format lenses are all so fat?

Because for the most part they're made with different criteria in
mind. Manufacturers know that people buy (bought) MF equipment for
high quality, so everything about the systems was optimized in that
direction. Weight and size were not the main concerns. Durability,
high sync shutter-in-lens are things of importance.

As I posted earlier, minimum glass sizes for the front of telephoto
lenses are dictated by the laws of optics and have nothing to do with
format. To some extent the rear elements of lenses can be made
smaller for smaller formats, but they tend to be fairly small and
light anyway, and are not major factors. For telephoto lenses the
front elements are the big, heavy and generally the most expensive
items and they are determined purely by focal length and aperture.

When you get to longer lenses, which is what this thread was about
originally, and there are no between lens shutters to muddy the
waters, you find that the lenses aren't a whole lot different in size
and weight for MF than for 35mm. See the 300/5.6 for the Mamiya 645
or the 300/2.8. There is some additional material and weight required
due to the larger mount, but otherwise they aren't particularly
larger than lenses for smaller formats.

>--
>Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
>http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
>Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
>1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
>STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

     ...my ride: http://www.archiphoto.com/Various/GT3/index.htm
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Skip Middleton]

---- Peter Hancock <p.j.b.hancock@...> wrote:

> Skip wrote:
>
> >By that logic, then the 2x sensor of the Olympus cameras should produce
>
> >lenses that are even smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that doesn't
> follow.
> >Oly 35-100 f2.0(35mm equiv. 70-200 f2.8): 1650g, 96.5mm x 213.5mm, 77mm
>
> >filter size and $2199.95
> >Canon 70-200 f2.8: 1590g, 86.2 x 197mm, 77mm filter and $1699.99.
> >See, other things enter in to the equation.
>
> Yup, like f2 rather than f2.8.  Or to give another example, Olympus
> 300mm f2.8, 3290g, about 4750 pounds, Canon 600 f4, 5300g about 5800
> pounds.  Lighter, cheaper and a whole stop brighter.  I think I'll rest
> my case there.
>
> Peter
>

Except you should be comparing the 300mm Oly to the 400mm f2.8 Canon, since both, in your discussion, are on crop cameras.  Or compare the 300mm Oly to the 300mm Canon.
As far as f2 vs f2.8 goes, remember, for depth of field, you need the f2.0 to get the equivalent shallow depth of the f2.8 on the 1.6x crop.  No such thing as a free lunch.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[James B.Davis]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:36:46 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
wrote/replied to:

>>You'll never convince me though that if the optical circle doesn't
>>need to be so
>>big, that the glass lenses used can't all be a bit smaller. Why do you think
>>medium format lenses are all so fat?
>
>Because for the most part they're made with different criteria in
>mind. Manufacturers know that people buy (bought) MF equipment for
>high quality, so everything about the systems was optimized in that
>direction. Weight and size were not the main concerns. Durability,
>high sync shutter-in-lens are things of importance.

Yes, and the Sigma made for smaller sensors is made with different criteria in
mind, that's my point. It's made for someone who wants a thinner, lighter lens.
That is the design objective they start off with and I guess they manage to trim
it down considerably. Otherwise nobody would buy it.

We haven't touched the optical laws of physics here though, about making a
bigger image circle. I guarantee you it requires bigger glass not smaller and
vice versa.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Bob W8IMO]

Some time ago I was at a flea market with my wife and son.  My son was a
recent college graduate with a BS in Mechanical Engineering.  I bought
him a Mechanical Engineering Handbook that was dated 1941.  I kidded him
that when he took it to work he would be an instant old timer.  My wife
questioned the value of a 55 year old book.  My son and I quickly
explained that the laws of physics don't change.

Seems like a lot of folks are not aware of that fact.

The size of the aperture is the focal length divided by the expected f
number, ie: 400/2.8  etc......

Physics says there will most likely not be a 400mm f/2.8 with a diameter
of 50mm or less.

Bob.


--

                           /////
                          ( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@...------
Curiosity killed the cat although I was a suspect for a while........
   



*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[James B.Davis]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:13:30 -0500, Bob <w8imo@...> wrote/replied to:

>The size of the aperture is the focal length divided by the expected f
>number, ie: 400/2.8  etc......
>
>Physics says there will most likely not be a 400mm f/2.8 with a diameter
>of 50mm or less.

True, but the aperture is only one small part of a lens. There's a whole lot of
glass lenses inside that do various things, one of which is form the image
circle. It has nothing to do with the aperture.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

>On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:36:46 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
>wrote/replied to:
>
>>>You'll never convince me though that if the optical circle doesn't
>>>need to be so
>>>big, that the glass lenses used can't all be a bit smaller. Why do you think
>>>medium format lenses are all so fat?
>>
>>Because for the most part they're made with different criteria in
>>mind. Manufacturers know that people buy (bought) MF equipment for
>>high quality, so everything about the systems was optimized in that
>>direction. Weight and size were not the main concerns. Durability,
>>high sync shutter-in-lens are things of importance.
>
>Yes, and the Sigma made for smaller sensors is made with different criteria in
>mind, that's my point. It's made for someone who wants a thinner,
>lighter lens.
>That is the design objective they start off with and I guess they
>manage to trim
>it down considerably. Otherwise nobody would buy it.
>
>We haven't touched the optical laws of physics here though, about making a
>bigger image circle. I guarantee you it requires bigger glass not smaller and
>vice versa.
>
>--
>Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
>http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
>Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
>1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
>STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
>*
>****

Image circle and size of glass are not interdependent. Look it up
since you clearly don't believe me.

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Bob Wise]

Clearly you can (within reason) decouple the size of the glass and the
image circle. That's not what this debate is about... this is about
the resulting _brightness_ of the image circle.

If you reduce the size of the image circle, you get a brighter image.
For those of you who doubt this, I refer you to adolescent experiments
in starting fires with a magnifying glass - image circle size does matter!
:-)

Image brightness is some function of the size of the size of the gathering
end to the size of the image circle. This is the basic reason lenses for
smaller sensors are smaller for the same speed as a full-frame lens... they
are not throwing as many photons away.

-Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-eos@... [mailto:owner-eos@...] On Behalf Of Henning Wulff
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:43 PM
To: eos@...
Subject: Re: EOS re 1.6X telephoto

>On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:36:46 -0800, Henning Wulff <henningw@...>
>wrote/replied to:
>
>>>You'll never convince me though that if the optical circle doesn't
>>>need to be so
>>>big, that the glass lenses used can't all be a bit smaller. Why do you
think
>>>medium format lenses are all so fat?
>>
>>Because for the most part they're made with different criteria in
>>mind. Manufacturers know that people buy (bought) MF equipment for
>>high quality, so everything about the systems was optimized in that
>>direction. Weight and size were not the main concerns. Durability,
>>high sync shutter-in-lens are things of importance.
>
>Yes, and the Sigma made for smaller sensors is made with different criteria
in
>mind, that's my point. It's made for someone who wants a thinner,
>lighter lens.
>That is the design objective they start off with and I guess they
>manage to trim
>it down considerably. Otherwise nobody would buy it.
>
>We haven't touched the optical laws of physics here though, about making a
>bigger image circle. I guarantee you it requires bigger glass not smaller
and

>vice versa.
>
>--
>Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
>http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits,
>Modulator Kits, Powerlet, Centech, Posi-Lock, Parts.
>1988 K100RS SE ABS in Japan. 1991 ST1100 in America.
>STOC#6327, IBMWR, KBMW
>*
>****

Image circle and size of glass are not interdependent. Look it up
since you clearly don't believe me.

 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/565 - Release Date: 12/2/2006
9:39 PM
 

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************