In article <33C31668.38B8@earthlink.net>, seangolden@earthlink.net says...
>Fred Whitlock wrote:
>> My experience, unfortunately, is from two rolls film made on a single day
>> with a borrowed copy of this lens.
> would
>> consider truly sharp with the lens at any aperture but you could get
>> acceptable enlargements with the thing stopped down a lot.
>>
>> I was considering one of these as a travel lens but abandoned the idea when
>> I examined the chromes with a loupe. The results really weren't sharp.
>> Please temper these comments with the knowledge that I use some very sharp
>> lenses and I'm very fussy. While I was dissatisfied with the sharpness of
>> this lens most photographers would be content with the lens's performance
>> stopped down to f11 or less.
>>
>> It's impossible with current technology to get critical results with such
>> an extreme design. You need to be willing to trade some convenience for
>> some performance. If the extreme zoom range is the important factor, then
>> this lens would be as good as any.
>>
>> Fred
>I disagree with Fred and just about everything he says. The lens isn't
>perfect, but to compare it to >$1,000 primes (which appears to be his
>standard) isn't a fair comparison. I think Fred appears to think a lens
>that is less than perfect isn't worth considering as a lens. Fred must
>have lots of money to burn. For those of us who DON'T have thousands of
>dollars to invest in lenses, this lens is quite a bargain. I use mine
>and have enlarged several prints with very good results. I have had
>several comments from friends and family about how sharp and colorful my
>photos have become since I bought this lens.
>
>If you're like Fred and expect a 7:1 zoom to compare to $1,000 primes,
>then don't get this lens. If you have more realistic expectations, you
>won't find a better lens for the price anywhere. Of course, I'm a rank
>amateur without the discerning taste of true professionals, or the
>bottomless wallet to apply to my hobby, but I'll bet so are most of you.
>
>-sdg
Sorry, I can't resist...
I must respect your choice to select a lens of less than stellar
performance due to its perceived convenience factor (I don't find
zooms very convenient to use, relative to primes, myself - and
use them only when fast FL change is a must [they actually slow
down my shooting speed, in undesireable ways...]), but if you think
the higher quality alternative costs $1000, check out the price of
a new or used normal lens for your camera - and it will be (in addition
to being cheaper), noticeably faster, sharper, contrastier, lighter,
smaller, easier to focus, faster to operate, probably more fun to use,
closer focusing, brighter in the viewfinder, etc., etc. For myself, I
can never understand the choice to use a lens that forever places a low
limit on the technical quality of the images one makes... If someone
really wants only snapshots, P&S's are more practical and convenient
(being even smaller, lighter, and easier to use than an SLR with a
zoom...). If higher quality is desired, a good 28mm, 50mm, and
70/80-200/210mm (which can be excellent...) set of lenses can provide
both reasonable convenience and top image quality at a reasonable
price...
Hope This Helps
(David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether )