By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win.
Say I'm choosing a 400mm telephoto lens from three candidates. One costs $250; the second, $400, the third $2000. On a scale of 1 to 10, the $250 lens rates a 5 ($50 per point), the $400 lens, a 9 ($44.44 per point), the $2000 lens, a 10 ($200 per point). Logic, common sense, and greed would suggest that I go for the $400 lens. But I'll probably use a 400mm lens for maybe 15 shots a year. At that rate, the cost per photo will be astronomical at any price, and perhaps I should settle for a $200 specimen. Or a teleconverter, which would spare me the need to buy yet another protective filter and carry yet another big lens. It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math. It would certainly seem that a well-built lens is an extravagance for someone who will probably not see rugged use. So a lens that has a reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be a good candidate for the infrequent user. Comments? Paul Franklin Stregevsky 13 Selby Court Poolesville, Maryland 20837-2410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] H (301) 349-5243 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
