Apparent sharpness. The difference between the DA 16-45 and the FA 35/2 stopped down to f8 or so is only evident at extreme enlargement, but it can be seen. I could have shot this job with either lens, and it would be just fine for the client, a magazine publisher. After printing on offset, no one could possibly see any difference. But I would guess that the publisher's art directors examine the photos quite carefully, and I always try to put my best foot forward. Paul
> >Prior experience told me that the results would be slightly better with my > >best > lenses... > > In what way? > > Just curious > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What the F?? > > Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my > DA > 16-45. But instead I switched back and forth between the K 24/3.5, the FA > 35/2, > and the FA 50/1.4. Why? Because the three primes are better tools. Same > photographer, better tools. Prior experience told me that the results would > be > slightly better with my best lenses, so I worked a little harder and swapped > the > glass in and out. The best tool one can afford is best. > Paul > > > > On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can > > > afford is best. > > > > No. > > > > All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that "sufficient > > tools" will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that > > are every bit as good as "the best tools". > > > > Marnie, I suspect you're buying into what marketers and advertising > > agencies would want you to. > > > > cheers, > > frank > > > > -- > > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
