Karen Nakamura wrote: > I agree! The wider-aperture lenses are usually designed for maximum > performance wide open. However, the consumer lenses are usually > designed to be best stopped two stops down. That's one of the biggest > differences. > > At f/8, the difference narrows tremendously to the point where you > can pretty much use anything. However, the consumer zoom often cannot > "catch up". This is the case between the IS and L lens in question. > > Besides, if the OP wants absolute sharpness as their prime criteria, > they should be using a prime. Nothing beats a contemporary prime. > Sharpness isn't everything. You use a lot of sharpness and a lot of > light with a zoom. That's why I've tended to avoid them like the > plague. ---------------------------------------------------------- Karen,
Rarely do I disagree with you but you are speaking more emotionally than anything else. Sharpness depends on the lens. Some zooms are better than primes and vice versa. With all due respect you sound like you are simply making yourself feel better about paying big bucks for L lenses and want all to know it. L lenses are worth the price providing they meet your criteria. "Tough as hell" is an interesting criteria. Alfred Eisenstadt claimed if he liked a lens he used it. Me too! But I am a bit more open minded than most. But spending $1500 for a 35mm F1.4 v. $250 for a 35mm F2 if I were to only be shooting at F8 is really a waste of money. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
