Chuck Norcutt opined:
> .... But I still don't see any excuse for sending out a bad sample at $1400
> a pop.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
Ken Norton agreed:
> Exactly! I have absolutely no tolerance for companies shipping schlock when
> they are charging a premium for product marketed as a premium product. ...
I fully agree as to QA - however, as to other points ...
Ken Norton ranted:
> As to Canon's legendary soft wide-angles...to me, when they slap that "L" on
> a lens, it should mean something. ... I would rather that a manufacturer
> not have a lens on the market if it isn't right.
>
There's a distinction here that many commenters on various forums* miss.
And Canon seems to do little to make it themselves.
At various times, there have been non-L lenses that outperform certain L
lenses in some optical ways.
The criteria are, as I understand it:
1. Is the optical performance up to professional needs?
2. Is the construction up to professional needs?
Let's say C decided to make another version of the latest,
plastic-fantastic 50/1.8, with considerable actual metal content, full
weather sealing, full capability USM with full-time MF, solid metal
mount, etc. However, using the exact same optics. In my understanding of
the primary criteria of the "L" line this would qualify for "L" listing.
That is, up to the needs and rigors of hard, extensive use under all
kinds of conditions and optically solid.
Moose
* If you think the plural should be "fora" or some other form, see the
extensive prior threads on the subject.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|