Another post made me think of this question... Would an "L" zoom, or it's other brand equivalent, be good enough to make prime lenses obsolete? Just curious what other's opinions would be.
=?iso-8859-1?Q?TheDave=A9?=
Re: Is L glass that good?
"Tony Polson" replied: Heh, heh... nicely done... Ken
Ken Nadvornick
Re: Is L glass that good?
This IS my favorite post of the week...hands down. Thanks for giving me a smile.
Advocate
Re: Is L glass that good?
You have never heard of the Leica Tri-Elmar, obviously.
Tony Polson
Re: Is L glass that good?
Only if you add "eica". ;-) Or to put it another way, why are Leica R adapters for Canon EOS cameras selling so well? Why are the used prices of Leica R wide angle lenses higher than ever?
Tony Polson
Re: Is L glass that good?
OK. All legitimate points... -On the other hand...when you can switch lenses within 0.3 seconds to arrive at the different focal length you need in an instant of quick action/motion with a fixed focal length lens...let me know. ;) Everything has its place...and in the many parts of the photographic world that benefits from the ability to zoom...it's tough to beat Canon L. There is no question that Canon L zooms are world-class, and with few exceptions are up to most tasks, with optical quality that holds up well under serious scrutiny. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson
MarkČ
Re: Is L glass that good?
When an L zoom measures 3.2 x 5.0 cm, weighs 135 grams, is sharp in the corners at f/2.0, has great bokeh, handles flare without a problem & has no visible distortion - let me know.
