ChuckSchuh wrote in article
<19970911115301.HAA27046@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

> While no one can deny that prime lenses are sharper and faster,with
todays
> films and computer aided designed zooms,it is really a moot point.Very
few
> if any people can tell which shot was made with which lens in any
> photograph enlarged up to 16x20.Probably 95% of people never get their
> shots enlarged past 31/2 x 5 or 4 x 6. anything past 16 x 20 may be a
> different story, so instead of beating a dead horse, go out and make some
> photographs.' Nuff said,IMHO.

Hmmm...., you make a point with which I both agree and disagree...;-)
While it is true that the casual observer of any prints of any size will
probably
neither think about, nor see, the differences in optical quality of the
lenses
used (unless the lenses and/or techniques used were unusually bad), the
discerning viewer may well notice the soft corners and lack of "snap" of
the
poorer lenses compared with the better... In other words, if your standards

are low, the differences are irrelevant; if your standards are high, the
lens
(and format) capabilities count...
To recount what I and others have said (and if we have high standards...),
if you are shooting using wide apertures, good 35-mm format primes are
almost your only choice; if you are shooting using smallish apertures, good

35mm zooms may be just fine - though moving up to a larger format will
noticeably improve image quality, even in 8x10's.
Since I often choose to use wide apertures regardless of the light levels
(see "sun-plant" photos on my web page, under "Changing Showz", for
examples of aperture-important photos...), and since I prefer using the
best tools for 35mm image-making that I can, I choose my lenses carefully,
and I almost always use the best primes I can find - consistent with
compatibility with my camera bodies and with my budget, of course...;-)
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether