>Prior experience told me that the results would be slightly better with my >best lenses...
In what way? Just curious Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What the F?? Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my DA 16-45. But instead I switched back and forth between the K 24/3.5, the FA 35/2, and the FA 50/1.4. Why? Because the three primes are better tools. Same photographer, better tools. Prior experience told me that the results would be slightly better with my best lenses, so I worked a little harder and swapped the glass in and out. The best tool one can afford is best. Paul > On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can > > afford is best. > > No. > > All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that "sufficient > tools" will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that > are every bit as good as "the best tools". > > Marnie, I suspect you're buying into what marketers and advertising > agencies would want you to. > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
