That special quality I'm getting at comes from the combination of all the
technical aspects of the lens. You cannot put your finger on any one thing
that makes the difference. It is about balance. If you try to make it more
or less of any one thing you risk destroying that balance. As with the
135/2.5 FD, or the 50/1.4 SSC or other great lenses from Leica, Nikon,
Schneider, Zeiss, et al... when makers find the right balance of all the
objective and subjective factors in a lens, they have created something
special. My VERY subjective opinion is that Canon has got it spot-on with
their XX-200/2.8s, especially the 80-200 original. The list of Zooms at any
price level that achieve this "balance" is very small indeed.
Bottom line, however, just as with audio speakers, you have to like what
you see/hear. You can pay $5000 for a pair of high-end stereophile speakers
and not like their sound quality as much as a pair of $800 Polks.
Brian Fancher
Would you care to try
and describe this quality at all? Sharpness and contrast isn't
everything, and I'm extremely interested in the "other" qualities,
that are perhaps harder to quantify. ( If you've ever used an FD
135/2.5 - that lens has an exquisite quality that I value above
contrastiness and sharpness, although it's plenty sharp.)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
