>From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>2) ...there is very little difference in quality between comparable >>lenses from all the manufacturers.
>I think it's true that differences are small. And that manufacturers >had a large part of their line comparable with others'. Ironically, if this is true then it's not, as somebody suggested, "all about the glass". It's either "all about the cameras" (which differ a lot more in features and user interface) or "all about the perception of the glass". > For example, >I though until last week that Pentax famous low distorsion (0.5%) >28/3.5 lens was unique in that respect but discovered that the >MC-Rokkor-X 28/3.5 had the same low distorsion figure. One usually sees comparisons within brand, presumably for the benefit of users of that brand who wish to make a choice. You rarely see comparisons across brands. It's not really useful, unless it turns out that most of brand A's lenses are better than the other brands at a given price level. If that were the case, everybody would buy brand A. I don't really think that's why everybody seems to be buying Canon these days. That 28/3.5 design is great in other ways too. It makes Pentax's collection of mediocre 28/2.8 designs a bit of a mystery. Fortunately Pentax also offered the 30, 31, 28/2, etc. >>Increasingly, manufacturers are tailoring optical quality more >>precisely to price class as they learn not only to engineer quality >>in but also to engineer it out. >Still, sometimes you feel a manufacturer has put a bit more for the >price, hoping to sell volumes of that item. This could be true of >the Olympus Stylus with the great 35/2.8. Unfortunately, this is probably true primarily of entry level and generic stuff. Sigma might outsell Tamron across all platforms if they make a better 24-240/4.5-8.0 zoom for the same price, but Pentax isnt' going to sell a better 135/2.8 to somebody with a Nikon camera. (Pity about that--I'd love to put that 135/2.8 IF on my Nikons...) A better P&S lens or starter 28-80 might help sell cameras, though. DJE
