I don't know if I was a "professional" when I was shooting motorsports for car magazines. But my most used lens was a Vivitar 200/3.5, and I used to clean the bits or rubber and dust off it by wiping it with my t-shirt. I made many many thousands of dollars with that old hunk of metal and glass. The coating was gone. The front element had visible scratches. But the pictures still looked good in the magazines. Now that I'm strictly a hobbiest, I fret over a tiny spec of dust on any of my pristine glass. But that's because I'm a hobbyist, and I care about those things. (When I shot for money I had four lenses. Now that I shoot for fun I have forty.) Paul
P�l Audun Jensen wrote: > > Mishka wrote: > > >anyway, professional shooting (and anything professional) must be a > >completely different game with completely different rules, many not so > >obvious. > > I don't think so. I believe the run-of-the-mill pro is less concerned about > lens quality, as long as it is good enough, than the average enthusiast or > connoisseur. > > P�l > - > 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 . - 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 .
