On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:00:50 -0700, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a thought/question: If a lens is termed "mediocre" in general, but > gives good results in a specific situation, perhaps even one for which it > was designed, is it really a mediocre lens? > > For example, there is a Nikon lens for the Leica that is ideal for close > work at wide apertures. It was designed for just that purpose. Focusing > beyond a couple-three meters, and stopped down past 4.0, it's truly > mediocre, at best. <snip>
Reminds me of someone's comment about a very fast 50mm prime (I think it was f1.2, but I can't remember). IIRC, they said that it's best performance was around f 8 to f11, and that it was unusable opened wider than f5.6 because it was so soft. When someone asked him why he'd spent so much for an ultrafast prime, he defended his purchase by extolling it's performance in the f8 to f11 range, describing it as "outstanding". I'd have respected them more if they said, "it's a great huge honking lens, with a big front element, and it looks way cool on my body, dude!" <vbg> But, other than that silly (but true) anecdote, I know what you mean, Shel. And, I agree. It's like the infamous Takumar (bayonet) 2.5 135mm (which I never use since I got that SMC 2.5 135 from you <g>). Lots of people here think it's pretty bad. Others don't. But, since it's often available for around $30 on eBay, and since it's relative softness make it somewhat useful in certain situations, I don't think it's mediocre at all. When compared against lenses costing 10 times the amount, it's not an all-round good performer, and is rightly considered mediocre. When price is taken into account, as well as the fact that it's not bad for all applications, it may not be considered mediocre. cheers, frank -- "It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby." -Eliott Erwitt
