Shel's K85/1.8 is probably better than an A85/1.4 for almost everything he does (except the f/1.4 gives better bragging rights).
--
frank theriault wrote:
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
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
