On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:33:41 -0500, you wrote: >The upshot is that any deficiencies in the optical performance of the >> 17-35L or any lens that would be readily apparent in a transparency or >> 11x14-inch enlargement may be indiscernible in an image printed on a page of >> National Geographic or any other magazine. It is simply not possible to >> accurately judge the performance of a lens from an image reproduced on an offset >> press, even when you know for certain that what is on the page is the entire >> image and not a crop. >> >> fcc >> > >Wow! >After reading that I better take my Rebel 2000 and 28-105/3.5-4.5 and throw it right >in the trash. Without some $4,000 imaginary "L" lens, I guess life just isn't worth >living (or photos worth looking at).
Huh? How did you get that out of this? Lenses do have performance. Not that we all need Steinway concert grands, but they exist. What's wrong with talking about them? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
