> Brad,
>
> That is really the problem. You have nothing to compare it with. Unless
> your techs have shooting experience with the lens, they have the same
> problem. If they give you any answer other than "I don't know (assuming
> they don't use the lens in question), that should give you a lot of
> pause in accepting their credibility on other issues as well. Same goes
> for your Instructor.

Well, as I said later, I have a zoom to shoot at ~77mm.  You don't
necessarily have to shoot the lens to have a good informed opinion of it.
Techs of different types know all sorts of tidbit of information that can be
made into an informed opinion.

> Being an authority/expert can be intoxicating, and a common sign of
> this intoxication is the willingness to act as an authority/expert even
> when straying into unfamiliar territory. It's no sin, it's just human
> nature.

No kidding, that is a epidemic here.

> My own experience with the 77/1.8 is that it is different than my other
> good lenses (and I have good lenses).
> http://pug.komkon.org/02jan/dad.html is one shot taken with the 77/1.8,
> even if no one else can tell a difference between that an another lens,
> I can. I use most of my lenses quite regularly and in similar
> circumstances. I don't get that result from them when I use them the
> same way. Looking through the viewfinder with the 77/1.8 is also a
> slightly different experience from doing that with my other good lenses.
>
> I hope this doesn't sound like I worship the 77/1.8, because I
> don't--its focal length isn't a great one for me. If I could get the
> same results from my M135/3.5 or my FA 35/2 I'd ecstatic, but I
> don't---and I still love them. Doesn't keep me from recognizing a
> difference, though.

Well, you can look back, but I'm pretty sure I never said it didn't take
good pictures, in fact, I think I said it probably took good or superb
pictures (that's when I was talking optics, not build quality)

> Guess I'm starting to ramble.

Rambling is always good!

> Hope that makes sense,

It did.

> Dan Scott

Brad


Reply via email to