> I would say if you hadn't used any high quality primes but still decided to > pass some quick conclusion. There is not much to discuss really. I am not > saying whether your point is correct or not, just the lack of experience or > proof. > > regards, > Alan Chan
Hey Alan, Well, yes, we can have our opinions yes, ill-informed or informed. Wish I could try one to be more informed, but I fear I'd have to fly to Japan? <g> I really hate that word 'prime(s)', it means 'best, first-class, foremost, select, superior, top, top-quality'. Yet so many here toss it around as a fixed-focal length which it is. It seems be almost be a 'label'. If you want to impress me, talk about FA* lenses and such. Anyone want to argue that a fixed-focal length automatically classes it as superior? Hope not, or wouldn't think so. It's an antiquated word or phrase when zooms first came out and really were *bad*. Hey, we've come a long way baby! I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that happening! Anticipating a response, please no word games with Alan's use of 'high quality primes'. He said that here, but it is not generally said, just assumed, and is incorrect. Anyhow Alan, perhaps there is now more to discuss with this email than what a Limited really is/isn't until I get to try one out. Regards, Brad Dobo
