Apples to oranges comparison. I have a 24mm/f2.0 lenses. Will it produce
better results than a 24mm/f.2.8 lens which costs less than 1/2 as much?
In my case yes, because I quite often use it at f2.0. Now let's think
about someone who always uses flash in low light situations and never
goes below f5.6. My lens would be overkill for him the cheaper lens most
like producing better results than the more expensive one.
One again I say, "Good Enough is good enough". Unfortunately sometimes
many of us have to make do with "Not quite good enough".
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
