> With all the attention paid to the overattention that seems to be paid to
> the sharpness of a lens, I would just like to comment that even with a
> mediocre lens you can still geta good image. All the L lenses in the world
> will not improve a badly composed image albeit a sharp badly composed image.
>
> Its the image that counts not the sharpness!
True, all lenses sold nowadays will produce a image that is sharp enough, if not
enlarged too much. I find it quite amusing when people here recommend every
newbie photographer to start with something like 28-70 L. I have the 28-90 and
75-300 and the resulting images (especially with 28-90) are technically at least
good. No single person looking at A4 size prints would notice "the horrible lack
of sharpness" unless he actually compared two pictures side by side when the
other is taken with (say) 28-70 L. Usually we look for sharpnessless of cheap
lenses (is this a word?) and try that way to somehow justify the purchase of
these very expensive lenses. I'm not saying there are no differencies, I just
say that the sharpness is not _that_ big deal...
Severi
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
