>I'm a man. I don't like phallic things. Gay men like, but I don't. I >like my 35mm style camera and lens because they do the job they were >designed for. And that design has NOTHING whatsoever to do with >thatever you're talking about, sorry. Jim Some people see "phallic symbols" everywhere. - Cars - Church towers - Camera lenses - Cigars - guns Basically, any 3-D object with an aspect ratio of more than 2:1 This is incredibly selective though: a number 29 bus (single decker) is excluded yet it's actually closer to the shape than a Porche. A biro isn't, yet a Saturn 5 rocket is; A gun is yet a broom-handle isn't. I pity anyone who thinks a 600mm f4 remotely resembles a todger - frankly I think they need a pretty warped mind ... The shape is totally wrong, being almost conical in aspect once the "hood" is in place. Now the 100-400 ... that's another matter - heck, it even gets longer in use ;o) I suspect the whole concept tells us more about the observer than anything else. There are basic truths of form and function that have nothing to do with our inner psyche: submarines for instance are not shaped how they are to satisfy some innate insecurity of the Admiral, but because the shape works better, period. Bob Freud was a perv! ___________________________________________________________ FREE weekend phone calls! NO monthly fee, NO contract! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services/smarttalk/?StartupCode=OL063&srccode=COD_563
