I actually do agree with the statement, if the judgment is based on
objective criteria entirely that are objectively accepted. However, I
never base a judgment on such things (I'm not equipped for all sorts of
reasons to do that), and in my simple life it would be absurd to dissociate
image-rendering I prefer from something like an objective impression of the
fitness of the tool. This is terribly mushy, I'm sorry, but it's the best
I can do on this topic. I have far more to worry about as to what's going
on in my brain.
The equation never involves just the lens anyway. It involves film type,
film, lens, and -- now C.H. Ling tells me -- camera body, processing
variables, and film scanner. But that's beside the point.
Joel W.
At 10:55 AM 6/9/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I disagree! If photography is an art and not a science, then the only
criterion for deciding what is a good lens and what isn't is whether you
like the results it gives you.
Roger
> Lens contrast is an altogether different matter. A lens can only degrade
> image contrast, either by having a poor MTF at low spatial frequencies, or
> by scattering highlight light into the shadow areas. A lens that does
either
> of these things is _not_ a good lens, even if it provides the kind of
images
> we prefer.
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|