"F. Craig Callahan" wrote: > Gary Russell wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > >The 17-35mm f/2.8L did not possess the sort of photodo rating that I > > >expected it to......................... > > > > I guess the bottom line for me is that if the images the 17-35 L > > produces are published in National G with some > > amount of regularity, it's sure good enough for me. > > Without implying anything 'for' or 'against' the 17-35L, I would remark that it > might be useful to keep in mind that the compositional requirements for > photojournalism are often different than those for photos we might want to > project or hang on our walls (whether we want to call them "art" photos or not). > The photos in a photojournalism context are often intended as record shots, and > also are often meant to be viewed as one in a series and/or to illustrate the > accompanying text. As impressive as National Geographic photos often are, I > suspect that on more careful consideration relatively few (compared to the total > number published) are photos we would want to hang on the wall. Secondly, the > reproduction of a photograph in ink on an offset press has significant technical > shortcomings, and photos intended for magazines do not need the same measure of > technical excellence as do those intended for photographic enlargement and > display (although such excellence may be needed to sell the photo in the first > place). The upshot is that any deficiencies in the optical performance of the > 17-35L or any lens that would be readily apparent in a transparency or > 11x14-inch enlargement may be indiscernible in an image printed on a page of > National Geographic or any other magazine. It is simply not possible to > accurately judge the performance of a lens from an image reproduced on an offset > press, even when you know for certain that what is on the page is the entire > image and not a crop. > > fcc >
Wow! After reading that I better take my Rebel 2000 and 28-105/3.5-4.5 and throw it right in the trash. Without some $4,000 imaginary "L" lens, I guess life just isn't worth living (or photos worth looking at). JML * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
