P3D Re: prime equipment

["David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In P3D digest 3439 Dr. T. says:

> I'd say go for the second 3.5 and the film.  Most people will not 
> see a difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 under the usual shooting
> conditions.

I agree with Dr. T. in general as I have seen many fine images 
taken with 3.5's. I have also been surprised by images taken with 
Kodak cameras. I always view the slides in folios without any input 
from the comments sheets. That way I can make a very subjective 
evaluation. Many times I thought I was looking at a 2.8 or cropped 
Belplasca and it turned out to be a Kodak.

With that said I must say the 2.8 Realist (German lenses) that I have 
is far superior to either of the 3.5 that I used to own. By superior I 
mean sharper, more contrasty, and most of all better matched focal 
length. I am sure this was just a matter of getting a good 2.8 and 
two poorer 3.5's. But there is no way you could convince me to 
trade the 2.8 for a 3.5 no matter how good it was.

Is there any support for the assumption that beacuse the 2.8 lenses 
were more costly and limited in production that more care was 
given to matching the lenses? Or was I just lucky to get two so 
perfectly matched?
 
> The
> only reasons to go away from the Realist, Kodak, Revere, TDC, etc.
> are these:
> 
> - Wider film areas
> - Automation

And in the case of many RBT's I would like to add:

- Zoom lenses

I have used this factor both out of necesity (can't get far enough 
away from my subject - zoom to 28mm) and for effect (reduce 
stretch in portraits - zoom to 70mm).

That's all for now,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA
drdave@xxxxxxxxxx


------------------------------