32mm (+11-22mm) ... working with available light (PICS)

Marco Nero wrote:

Thunderstorm, I've said this before and I will say it again:
.
You are an literal definition of the word Troll. And the comments you make are often contradictory to the evidence on hand. I don't even need to post a reply or photographic evidence to support my observations because they're wasted on a person like yourself. You made four disparaging posts in this thread almost simultaneously. Desperate to muddy the waters with your unnecessary and negative comments. It's not just that you are technically wrong, it's that you persist in trollish behavior. I can't tell if you do this because you find it entertaining or because you mistakenly think that it makes you smarter than everyone else here (it doesn't), so I can only conclude that your repeatedly poor social skills are the result of psychological condition. It certainly seems to be the case and others have pondered the same. The thing is, you ought to be old enough and smart enough to know better.
.
Your list of dislikes... which included an inability to mount this lens with a speedbooster - would be utterly stupid if you understand the physics behind the design of optical elements. You say the Sony 30mm is more affordable... and that the 32mm Canon "can not be adapted to Sony E or FE cameras." No kidding. And why would that be? Now I know the Sony Fanboys are themselves the worst Trolls on the internet but you're in Canon territory now. And it's becoming abundantly clear that you're just Trolling the members here. I don't mean trolling in a friendly sense of the word, either. You're just trying to inflict offense with various members here. I've got thick skin and no shame so you won't score any brownie points with me. But your behavior hasn't improved in years. It might actually be time for you to take a break from this forum. I'll be happy to put in a word to this effect if required.
.
When the 32mm lens was announced you accused me of over-accentuating the benefits of this lens. I posted examples of why the M series would benefit from such a lens but you complained loudly and often that this lens was going to be a dud.
.
Then the lens was released. I picked up an advance copy prior to the public release date and spent three solid days taking thousands of photographs with it to test the aspects of the lens. The results were exceptional. It is without a doubt, one of the best lenses Canon has produced and it's certainly the best EF-M lens they've produced.
.
Then you were critical of the bokeh. It wasn't for you, apparently.
.
Then you complained when other members appeared to enjoy using their lens.
.
But no, for you, the Sigma was just as good if not better for your needs.
.
Despite this, you claim to have actually purchased this 32mm lens and suddenly didn't like it at all. Why you would buy a lens that is the source of your dislike is a mystery. Why you'd claim to have done so is not. So despite your distaste and open hostility towards this lens, and your disapproval of the price, you now claim you bought one. I say that's just rubbish. And I'm not the only one here to make this observation.
.
Of course, you then immediately claim that you "sold it" because you said it wasn't good enough for you. And what do you know? That Sony lens was apparently "better" after all. Or so you claim.
.
But you never posted any pictures from that lens to support your endless online crusade against it. And when another member noted that you hide behind an internet name, post no personal details, have no images in your galleries and post no examples, you became defensive and even abusive towards them. How dare they question you? Your faux outrage was embarrassing. Your unchecked behavior towards me is evident right now with your passive aggressive behavior in this thread.
.
And now, like you have done before, you are stalking threads that I have posted, disagreeing vehemently with what I write and claiming (as usual) that every body else is wrong and that your observations and experiences outweigh the opinions and evidence as posted here by others.
.
You accused me of "hysteria" simply for pointing out the obvious when a member here used clickbait or ignorance in their headline to claim that a vague rumor was factual.
.
I believe you are a fraud. You've posted no evidence whatsoever that you've owned the lenses you claim to own. You've been nothing but hostile to the other members here. And poor Olga didn't quite know how to handle your petty distaste for other people on this forum. Try this behavior on another forum here and see how far your behavior takes you. You claim that the 32mm lens is "too slow" (AF) for you and yet you profess to shoot Landscapes. The 32mm lens is just fine with operational speed and it's arguably Canon's SHARPEST lens right now. You're clearly spoiling for a reaction from others and myself because you've failed at delivering evidence to the contrary in almost an entire year.
.

1/3 - History repeating itself.

2/3

I no longer care to read your comments. But be sure to let us all know when 1/16,000 sec gets introduced to the Canon range.

.
.

You've been described as having the 'thought process from a three year old toddler' by other veteran members of the forum who no longer care to interact with you..

.
In the past, when you found yourself cornered by your own hostile behavior, your next course of action was to try and contain the damage by either repeating yourself or by telling people that there's room for another opinion (as though opinions equate to factual information)... or you simply accuse them of being (A) wrong or (B) lying.
.
Your stalking behavior is likely to trigger something appropriate from our new moderators after the passing of our last one. I would suggest that you simply refrain from responding to any of my posts again. Until the block feature here is resolved to my satisfaction, consider this a stern and sincere warning.
.
Sort yourself out.

I don't even open his posts anymore Marco.....I just skip to the next one.