>The "problem" with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is that they are AF lenses; loose, >rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately, I've discovered that initially >"tight" AF lenses develop looseness over time. It may well be that some newer AF >designs are potentially beter optically, but getting the best out of them is more of a >hassle.
I have noticed this too but I do not think that the degree of looseness is a measure for the degree of durability. I think they are designed to become looser with use (to keep friction as low a possible). Once they have become loose it stays like this. However,there is a big difference between built quality among the various AF lenses. You have to pay much for built quality (I estimate that today a lens with a built quality comparable to that of the K-lenses is at least 4-5x more expensive than it was in the eighteens). Older, MF lenses are built to last forever and my experience is that they do >and never ever get out of alignment or develop rattles. I aggree. But in those days, lenses were not categorized into "consumer" and "pro" lenses. Those who could afford the fast version bought a slower version of a lens. Both were made according to the same (high) standard. Today, the "consumer" is feeded with junk lenses while the "right stuff" has become excessively expensive considering the prices from the eighteens. Alexander > >Pål __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
