In article <4iiho0$9p6@agate.berkeley.edu>, murthy@rice.eecs.berkeley.edu says...
[most of post about not being able to distinguish between different
lens makers products, judging from reproductions, deleted]
>True. Magazines are not the best examples of good reproduction. But
>I assume that coffee table books and "how-to" books on photography
>represent somewhere near the best that can be achieved, and I have seen
>many of those also, and am unable to find any differences.

If you are trying to find differences in quality between the top end
lenses of most makers (those are what are most likely used for the
types of images you are looking at - good photographers rarely choose to use poor lenses, and will generally select the good ones in a line) by looking at even very high quality reproduced images (or even originals), I would agree with you that you will find few notable differences in quality between lens lines. When you explore the bulk of a lens maker's output, and especially the lower reaches of the various lines, you will find differences in overall lens-line quality that are important to me, but maybe not to everybody.... (Compare bottom-end Canon zooms with similar Nikkors, for instance....[or even some of the mid-line lenses, like the 17/18's and 20mm's], and you may also find differences that can be important to you. While it is true that the lowest price Nikkor may be more expensive than the lowest price Canon equivalent in some instances [and even approache the Canon "L" price,
as with the Nikkor 100-300mm or 75-300mm], one does need to ask the question, "Is a mediocre lens a good buy at any price?").
[I wrote:]
>|> Pop Photo article on Nat. Geo. photos), the thing that struck me is
>|> how technically poor most of the photos were. Given the huge number
>|> of images taken for each story, and the reputation of the
>|> photographers and of Nat. Geo. for high-quality images, the number
>|> of slightly soft images, slightly misexposed images, and images
>|> which showed obvious lens defects like unequal left and right edge >|> sharpness, soft corners and edges, etc. (which did show in the
>|> reproductions) was REALLY surprising!

>Yes, but I would argue that this is "real life". While technically >perfect photos have their place, they are not the be all and end all
>in photography,

I agree (sometimes the content and uniqueness of the image can far outweigh technical quality issues, but when there is time and other resources available to pay attention to image technical quality
[as there generally is with Nat Geo shoots], I consider overlooking
it to be a defect in the photography), but we were talking about lens
quality. A defective or inadequate lens is not a good tool, and it appeared from the Pop Photo reproductions that Nat. Geo. photographers were willing to use lenses that were less than ideal in design, manufacture, or condition (and they were willing to use them in oddly less-than-optimal ways, technically - something I still find strange, given some reputations.....).
Hope This Helps