Y'know, Frank brings up a good point. Talking about the quality of a lens is like describing sex. Everyone's experience is their own - there are so many variables in what makes the final print or slide or web shot or Photoshop manipulation. And then there's the language ... what is sharp to one person is nothing but to another, likewise soft is just another vague term meaning nothing in particular without a reference point.
My 75~150 M zoom is not to my liking, yet others on this list swear by it. After taking it out for testing I discovered some distortion I'd not noticed before, and when that was mentioned on the list a few folks chimed in to say that, indeed, they'd noticed the same thing. So, here we have a bunch of people applauding the lens for one or more aspects of its character while totally ignoring other qualities. So, what does this all mean, Boris? It means grab the lens and use it, and then decide how it fits into your photographic style and kit. frank theriault wrote: > Hi, Boris, > > I know that Greg didn't like his opened up. I think the word he used was > "unusable" or something like that. My experience has been quite the > opposite, especially since I use it wide open quite often [...] > Now, maybe Greg and I have widely divergent standards (very possible), but I > wonder if maybe he had a bad sample? "Unusable" wide open just doesn't come > close to my experience. [...] > I'd say that if you have a chance to pick one up at the "going" price, you > can't go wrong. Can't hurt to have a good performing cheap lens, can it?
