Are you 100% satisfied with any lens you own?

On 2011-12-29 09:02:37 -0800, RichA said:

Obviously not. Just for one example, because no lens provides full
resolution at full aperture, except for some hobbyist lenses like slow
apo process lenses. Before anyone says they don't need full
resolution for a (as an example) fast portrait lens at full aperture,
ask yourself, have you ever used it for something other than portraits
where full resolution at widest aperture would have been nice to
have? You must have.
There is no lens I know of that can satisfy anyone 100%, even if the
subject use for the lens is narrowly-defined. There is always
something that can be improved in a lens.

So?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/29/11 PDT 9:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-12-29 09:02:37 -0800, RichA said:

Obviously not. Just for one example, because no lens provides full
resolution at full aperture, except for some hobbyist lenses like slow
apo process lenses. Before anyone says they don't need full
resolution for a (as an example) fast portrait lens at full aperture,
ask yourself, have you ever used it for something other than portraits
where full resolution at widest aperture would have been nice to
have? You must have.
There is no lens I know of that can satisfy anyone 100%, even if the
subject use for the lens is narrowly-defined. There is always
something that can be improved in a lens.

So?

I am satisfied with each lens I have. But then, I live in the real
world, where expectations are, uh, obtainable.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-12-29 09:02:37 -0800, RichA said:

Obviously not. Just for one example, because no lens provides full
resolution at full aperture, except for some hobbyist lenses like slow
apo process lenses. Before anyone says they don't need full
resolution for a (as an example) fast portrait lens at full aperture,
ask yourself, have you ever used it for something other than portraits
where full resolution at widest aperture would have been nice to
have? You must have.
There is no lens I know of that can satisfy anyone 100%, even if the
subject use for the lens is narrowly-defined. There is always
something that can be improved in a lens.

So?


I want a lens like NASA used to watch the launch of the space shuttle.

Oh, with macro capability, and pocket size.

John McWilliams wrote in news:jdi7kn$i4k$1@dont-
email.me:

On 12/29/11 PDT 9:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-12-29 09:02:37 -0800, RichA said:

Obviously not. Just for one example, because no lens provides full
resolution at full aperture, except for some hobbyist lenses like
slow
apo process lenses. Before anyone says they don't need full
resolution for a (as an example) fast portrait lens at full aperture,
ask yourself, have you ever used it for something other than
portraits
where full resolution at widest aperture would have been nice to
have? You must have.
There is no lens I know of that can satisfy anyone 100%, even if the
subject use for the lens is narrowly-defined. There is always
something that can be improved in a lens.

So?

I am satisfied with each lens I have. But then, I live in the real
world, where expectations are, uh, obtainable.



Michael Reichman tested Sony's NEX-7. The lens that (clearly) worked
best was a $6000 Leica 24mm f1.4. If you'd never used or seen it, you
might be satisfied with the Zeiss lens you can get from Sony ($1000). If
you've never seen the Zeiss lens, you might be satisfied with Sony's own
offerings, if you have a strong stomach. But once you have seen what a
really good lens is capable of, how can you claim to be completely
satisfied with lesser lenses?

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:25:53 -0600, Rich wrote:

John McWilliams wrote in news:jdi7kn$i4k$1@dont-
email.me:

On 12/29/11 PDT 9:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-12-29 09:02:37 -0800, RichA said:

Obviously not. Just for one example, because no lens provides full
resolution at full aperture, except for some hobbyist lenses like
slow
apo process lenses. Before anyone says they don't need full
resolution for a (as an example) fast portrait lens at full aperture,
ask yourself, have you ever used it for something other than
portraits
where full resolution at widest aperture would have been nice to
have? You must have.
There is no lens I know of that can satisfy anyone 100%, even if the
subject use for the lens is narrowly-defined. There is always
something that can be improved in a lens.

So?

I am satisfied with each lens I have. But then, I live in the real
world, where expectations are, uh, obtainable.



Michael Reichman tested Sony's NEX-7. The lens that (clearly) worked
best was a $6000 Leica 24mm f1.4. If you'd never used or seen it, you
might be satisfied with the Zeiss lens you can get from Sony ($1000). If
you've never seen the Zeiss lens, you might be satisfied with Sony's own
offerings, if you have a strong stomach. But once you have seen what a
really good lens is capable of, how can you claim to be completely
satisfied with lesser lenses?

Under ordinary circumstances nobody will be completely satisfied with
a lens once they have seen one which is better for their purposes. But
that's not the situation you posed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens