Well now you tell me, after I just ordered the DA16-45! It hasn't even arrived yet... Regards, Bob S.
On 11/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > >
