Ah, I shall attempt to do the same thing, Billy Robb really had to reach to keep up with me, and show's his true colours by the end anyhow. Anything long is bound to get caught up. Why are we here anyhow? Geez, it wouldn't be any fun if we couldn't argue and nit-pick. Anyhow, if some of us claim to know as much as we do and what not, then why are we typing emails on a board? Why are you out shooting, shopping, having sex, doing family things, reading a good book, watching Seinfeld re-runs, getting drunk, hitting the town, being with friends, etc, etc. Instead we all spend our time here on this board wasting time. Cause if your good, why do you need to be here so much? You're not going to learn much.
Ok, another point here, is the 77Ltd. a cheap mans best lens? Not enough FA* talk for me here, I'm far more interested in that than the other. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > Alan I won't respond. It was not based in fact. Just my opinion. People will > pick it apart. That's fine. I'll just sit back and enjoy it and maybe get out > and do some shooting... > Vic > > In a message dated 11/21/02 1:52:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << > >I fear that some new photographer is going to read this discussion and > > > >think that if they don't have a ltd lens, a prime lens of every focal > > > >length, FA* lenses ... they can never hope to get good pictures. > > > > > > I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... > > > > > > >1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. > > > > > > Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? > > > > > > >2) You, I and 90 per cent of the people on this list could not tell the > > > >difference between a picture taken with the worst Pentax lens and the > > best > > > >when viewing a 4X6 inch print. That figure goes to 95 percent if the > > > >picture is viewed on the Web and 100 per cent if proper technique is not > > > >used. > > > > > > Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best > > > Pentax lens with 4x6" prints? Have you actually tried it? > > > > > > >3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good > > and > > > >sometimes better than Pentax lenses. > > > > > > Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw > > > this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. > > > > > > >4) People who own a particular lens will rarely speak poorly about it. > > The > > > >amount of praise is directly related to how much they paid for it. > > > > > > I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular > > Photography > > > said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. > > > > > > I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and > > colour. > > > Horrible flare control and materials. > > > > > > I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. > > I > > > say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. > > > > > > I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it > > has > > > nothing special optically. > > > > > > I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in > > > no time. > > > > > > I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. > > > > > > Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this > > > conclusion? > > > > > > >6) People who talk ad-nauseum about lenses (And we all fall into this at > > > >times) are more likely to be collectors rather than shooters. > > > > > > Proof? > > > > > > >7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. > > > > > > Photographers & collectors have different objectives. "Better"? What do > > you > > > mean exactly? > > > > > > >8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as > > much > > > >as shooters. > > > > > > Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you > > > don't know many list members here. > > > > > > >9) The best lenses are the ones you use. > > > > > > That could means many things. > > > > > > >10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . > > > > > > I doubt it. > > > > > > >11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very > > > >expensive lenses. > > > > > > Sharpness is not everything. > > > > > > regards, > > > Alan Chan > > > >> >
