On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:13:22 +1200 "Eric Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It's also pretty well known that a quality zoom can't approach the >quality of a prime lens. I, for one, would contest such a view. A zoom with only a moderate range may be quite capable of outperforming a prime. I'd guess that the 35-70/2.8 performs better than the 50/1.2. I'm none to fond of how my 60/2.8 performs in the non-macro range. What primes tend to offer is speed. But here are soft primes. And there are sharp zooms. A sharp zoom is probably sharper than a soft prime. There are some rather soft primes out there too, perhaps as a result of old designs. I know prime designs are relatively simple, but I'm sure they can be improved upon; why else would Leica be redesigning many of their lenses, such as the 35/1.4 aspherical? >A Final Thought - Posting your resume to backup your blue-sky lens test and >attempt to denigrate another list-member's comments (mine) was tactless and >out of place. How absurd! I think you have to remember, Eric, that you were the first to denigrate another list member's comments - suggesting that William was being rather foolish in conducting his tests. By so impugning Williams tests, you practically forced him to respond to your attack. So he did, showing you that he is not some neophyte conducting absurd and impractical tests, but an experienced photographer reporting a valid assesment. And by the way, Eric, I've seen enough of your posts on photo.net to know that you make a habit of denigrating other people for asking questions you find foolish.
