I agree and disagree. I think there is noticeable differen between these
lenses but most of the lenses today take sharp enough pictures. But I am
more concerned about contrast quality of the pictures and the snap. The
cheaper lenses do not have this. When I got my Elan II with the 28-80 USm
lens, I noticed that my pictures were less appealing then the ones I used to
take with my Olympus Stylus P&S. After I got my 50mm 1.8 lens, my manager at
work looked at the picture taken with a 50mm and said, "Wow, that is very
sharp, and the colors look great". I was surprised. There is definitely for
me a difference. If you do not 'miss' anything in your pictures, then youare
ok - but did you really take pictures with a pro lens? Even then, you might
not think that it is worth it. I think that the initial quality is very good
nowadays, and anything more than that is incremental.
I was missing some sharpness and contrast, so I upgraded. I have two
tokina's and 2 canon's now. I think they all do a good job.
-----Original Message-----
From: Severi Salminen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
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
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
