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. Bryce Robert Hashizume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>replied: >I, for one, would contest such a view. [snip] I'd guess that the >35-70/2.8 performs better than the 50/1.2. How is Robert's statement meant? I'd have no quibble that the 50/1.2 does not shine at f/1.2. However is the 35-70 likely to out perform the prime at /f2.8? I have posted before concerning my experience with zooms. It is limited, including only two old lenses, one of which is infamous (the early 43-86) and one of which seems quite well thought of (80-200 f/4.5). I also have a Tamron 200-400 that I consider quite soft, although certainly usable. I have not had the good fortune to try a "good" one, like the 35-70 f/2.8. I was considering buying the 28-70 f/2.8 when it becomes availaible but have decided against it on the matter of cost and the reservation that it would not offer the same image quality I have come to expect from my old Nikkors from the 70's. I am still intriqued by the thought of getting the 28-70 f/2.8. The convenience promises to be wonderful . . . I sure do get tired of having the lens I want "back in the van". However it seems a very expensive convenience indeed and I am not prepared to do it if it compromises both speed (a given) and sharpness/contrast (debatable). . . . but I remain torn (sigh). Wish I could rent one to try out but I live a long way from a big city where such things are possible. -- Terence A. Danks Nova Scotia, Canada http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
