Sure, and many liked Pentax's lenses better than Leica's. But I'm not talking about what went on 40 years ago. Some PJ's liked Nikon lenses so they switched to Nikon, and it didn't hurt that Nikon made built-like-tank bodies, had interchangeable finders, offered great system support, etc. etc. Lens quality may have been an issue at one point in time, but it's the complete system that keep pros using a particular brand. Nowadays most pros I talk to assume that their expensive lenses are 'good enough' in terms of optical quality, and they're interested in other stuff. USM, IS, VR, fps, rugged bodies, DSLR's, and so on. Sure, optical quality plays a role in their decision to choose a brand, but it's one of many, many other factors.
chris On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > I hate to break it to you, but they (pros) chose Nikon and Canon before > AF existed. Nikon acquired its reputation because photographers liked > their (Nikon's) lenses, in Leica SM, better than Leica lenses. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I don't see it that way. There's more to choosing a system than the > >optical quality of the lenses, otherwise all pros would be shooting with > >Leicas and MedF stuff. Other AF systems have so much more to offer than > >Pentax that it's not surprising that pros are using Nikon/Canon, but that > >doesn't mean that many Pentax lenses aren't optically superior to their > >N/C counterparts. > > > >chris > > > > > >On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > > > > > > >>Oh yes, this is a scream. Professional photographers are blind, stupid > >>and prefer to use second rate lenses. > >> > >>BR > >> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Isn't it funny that the two big camera makers doesn't make as good > >>>lenses as the two that's not as big? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
