You have not answered my question regarding a x2.5 F2.8 DSLR zoom. Such a zoom does not exist.
You have not answered my question regarding a >3x range zoom with <f/2.8 aperture for the RF (or other MILC) mount. Such a zoom does exist for APS-C DSLRs.
A person who would not apologies for his harassing behaviour can hardly can be called a descent human being. That has nothing to do with a state of your mental health, social status, gender, sexual preferences, colour of your hairs, you height complexity, cognitive abilities, age, social status, citizenship, religious believes or quantity of Canon equipment in your closet.
Read your initial comment: you refer to a possible brain damage and then to some one being blonde in your late statement.
Your statement is discriminative.
Learn from your mistakes.
Oh, please.
You read my initial comment. You stated that you don’t recall ever seeing a lens which we both know doesn’t exist. I stated that IF you recalled seeing such a lens, then you MAY have had a head injury. Key points: You never said you recalled seeing an 85/1.2 IS. I never said you had a head injury.
Hypothetical:
Bert: “I don’t recall ever seeing a purple unicorn farting out rainbows and L lenses.”
Ernie: “If you did recall seeing a purple unicorn, regardless of the composition of its flatulent emissions, you’d be bat-crap crazy.”
In the above, Ernie affirms Bert’s mental acuity – not seeing things that don’t exist is good. But in your mind, Ernie called Bert crazy. Then in your version, Bert perseverates on his perception that he was insulted and harassed, and goes on to insult Ernie and demand an apology...all based on aggressive misinterpretation of an innocuous comment that was, in fact, positive.
You previously proposed to end this discussion, but instead you chose to escalate it. I’d suggest you adhere to your own advice and refrain from posting further on a matter that you’ve already blown way out of proportion and has led to your posting some truly offensive comments.