On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 19:49:24 GMT, johnknee.nospam@earthlink.net (john) wrote:

>I'm an on again off again photographer and I am curious about 2
>things.
>
>1. Why do some rave about the quality of older lenses (esp Nikon) I
>mean shouldn't all the advances in optical glass and optics technology
>mean current lenses just leave the older stuff in the dust? I can see
>how all the AF stuff means there is less selection for MF stuff...
>
>2. Why are certain lens out of production like fish eyes? I mean
>shouldn't there be even more demand now? Are we really seeing a
>"dumbing down" effect?

It boils down to market demand (but maybe with a little help from
the sales staff to direct that demand...;-). Rarely-purchased lenses
do not make money for a lens manufacturer, unless priced beyond the
reach of most (really rendering them rather rarely-purchased...;-).
El-Cheapo slow AF zooms of so-so optical quality sell like the
proverbial hotcakes, and are mass-produced cheaply, so they make
a profit. Time was when some lens mfgrs. competed on the quality and
diversity of their output, figuring the reputation gained would serve
them well in the long run. But it became obvious with time that mere
advertising could be substituted for reputation, and the "reality"
about lens quality was determined more by the quality/quantity of
the promotional work. Mass-market lenses + advertising = profit.
Which isn't to say that great lenses (even in AF...! ;-) aren't being
produced now for the top end of the market, but a large low end
market (in price AND quality) has opened up that wasn't there before,
resulting, I think, in a lower overall level of lens image quality
than once existed.