Despite the remarks against the post, it was a very good common sense post *and* a nice fresh approach in an email that none of us has come up with to date.
Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:16 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > >I fear that some new photographer is going to read this discussion and > >think that if they don't have a ltd lens, a prime lens of every focal > >length, FA* lenses ... they can never hope to get good pictures. > > I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... > > >1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. > > Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? > > >2) You, I and 90 per cent of the people on this list could not tell the > >difference between a picture taken with the worst Pentax lens and the best > >when viewing a 4X6 inch print. That figure goes to 95 percent if the > >picture is viewed on the Web and 100 per cent if proper technique is not > >used. > > Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best > Pentax lens with 4x6" prints? Have you actually tried it? > > >3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and > >sometimes better than Pentax lenses. > > Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw > this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. > > >4) People who own a particular lens will rarely speak poorly about it. The > >amount of praise is directly related to how much they paid for it. > > I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular Photography > said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. > > I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and colour. > Horrible flare control and materials. > > I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. I > say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. > > I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it has > nothing special optically. > > I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in > no time. > > I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. > > Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this > conclusion? > > >6) People who talk ad-nauseum about lenses (And we all fall into this at > >times) are more likely to be collectors rather than shooters. > > Proof? > > >7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. > > Photographers & collectors have different objectives. "Better"? What do you > mean exactly? > > >8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much > >as shooters. > > Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you > don't know many list members here. > > >9) The best lenses are the ones you use. > > That could means many things. > > >10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . > > I doubt it. > > >11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very > >expensive lenses. > > Sharpness is not everything. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >
