Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 7/30/02 10:20:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pklein@2alpha.net writes: << A little flare, a little softness, a bit of "glow," coma in the highlights, sketchy detail in the shadows. >> These are all fine if the photographer intended it (actually "hoped for" is more like it since the results are hard to predict until one sees an unaltered print) for artistic purposes. But if the lens quality is such that one has no choice, that is a different matter altogether. << Now of course, if someone brought me both lenses and said, "you can have either one for free, but only one," I would pick the ASPH without hesitation. >> This hypothetical situation is of course in the realm of the fantasy. But my main objection to it is this. There is a price differential to pay for every improvement that comes along, Leica products included. If we are to reject an improved product because it is more expensive than the item it replaces, where will Leica or any other company end up in the long run? Dante - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html