> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:43:29 -0500
> From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FD vs EOS
>
> At 07:16 PM 3/6/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >That is one thing. Almost all consumer grade lenses are
> >of very poor mechanical quality in comparison.
>
> <Very poor>? I don't want to split hairs, but while there are some out
> there not worth bragging over, consider what the average consumer is
> getting for his or her 109.95, or less.
Remember what the FD standard in construction was.
Or that of any other out of the big five.
In general the durability and mechanical precision
of a lens made in the early 80ies compared to a current
production lens was exceptional.
Just compare the FDn 1.8/50 mm to the current
EF 1.8/50 mm, and you know what I mean.
Plastic mount, no scale, poor mechanics.
> I wouldn't compare these to an "L" lens,
But the mechanical precision and production standard of
todays "L" lenses was obligatory for *all* lenses back
in the early 80ies.
Yes, market forces are part of degenerating quality, and
it is futile to ask who started lowering production
standards first.
I frown at the prices for "L" lenses.... and buy them
nevertheless. Bearing in mind that the FDn 1.4/50 mm
that I bought along the A-1 20 years ago cost mere
130 US$, and looking at the price of todays
EF 1.4/50 mm....
--
Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.photoquack.de
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
