On 9 Apr 2003 10:07:28 -0700, mppg1@att.net (Michael P Gabriel) wrote:

>I just don't understand...hundreds of postings discussing which lens

>is better or worse. Discounting obviously poor physical lens quality ,

>is the lens the ONLY criterion for decent pix?

No, obviously not. But using a good lens does make

for greater range in possibilities for picture-making...

(a poor lens is limiting).

>I think it's like comparing Pizza! It depends who eats it! I read one

>post where the lens was awful and the pictures were outrageously bad.

>Not too many days later, that lens was raved about by someone else.

Peoples standards are different, and so sometimes are

different samples of the same lens...

>It may be the lens, the camera, the settings, the user, the film, the

>current shooting environment, the temperature, the humidity, and

>probably a lot more factors involved.etc. That settles it! I'm going

>to read independent reviews from various websites and forget about who

>likes what and who hates the same thing!

Both can be useful, in context...

>PS Is there such a thing as an,"Independent", reviewer"???? I wonder!

I try to be, for Nikkors, for *my* particular standards

(read the text for more on this...;-), at:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, and in the reviews

found at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html, and in

the comments in posts, archieved (with search engine) at:

www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/posts. See what you think...