High on the Mountain Top
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: vancouver, bc, Canada.
Arnold, while its perfectly clear you received no love as a child, there is no reason to result to calling names because someone has a different viewpoint. Why is it that every topic you post to is just you bullying (unsuccessfully) other members. The value in this forum is the combined input from everyone, regardless of viewpoint, experience, etc. For you to systematically respond with such senseless drivel paints a picture of a sad and lonely individual crying out for help.
Do you need help Arnold? Going through a rough time? I suggest you vent your frustrations elsewhere, you have no idea how stupid you ridiculous you make yourself look...
Now to respond to the quarrel you caused on this topic. I somewhat agree with you, there will be times when a difference cannot be discerned from for example a prime vs. a zoom lens. Good glass vs. bad glass are such general terms though, I wouldn't consider the nifty 50 from canon (ef 50 f1.8ii) to be good glass but yet stopped down its stellar, in fact most poorer lenses are still quite adequate when stopped down. But then there's the times you shoot with wider aperatures, wide open even. There you would certainly see a difference in most comparisons (sticking with prime vs. zoom as the example though there are still exceptions - see above nifty 50 or the 70-200f4L is great wide open). There are also more things to consider then just sharpness/detail. Strong considerations in many lens choices include flare resistance, bokeh, good contrast and colour, qualities that pricier glass is engineered to improve on. SLR lenses span the gamut to match any application, hell I know pro photogs who have never bothered with primes, others still who use them exclusively, they all have their reasons. At an amateur level though, I would agree the difference is mostly insignificant all other things being equal.