Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Nigel Watson wrote: > >[snip] >> Another problem with "expert" opinions is that they often disagree completely. Cases in point: "Moose" Peterson is a published pro photographer and author who is acknowledged as a Nikon expert. He writes that the 85/2 Nikkor is a dog. Galen Rowell, whose reputation preceeds him, has used that lens for an enormous body of his work, and says it is a great lens. >[snip] > >When I was still dumb enough to waste time on rec.photo.equipment.35mm.onanism or whatever it's called, I saw many references to MP's books, and finally tracked a couple down and bought them. > >While they're useful references in some respects, I take his opinions about lens quality with a *huge* pinch of salt. He seems to have some very odd opinions about some lenses in the range which are utterly at odds with my personal experiences with examples of the same lenses (and those of my colleagues). > And I find his prose style very tortured, he needs a good editor (as do we all). > >David Morton >(1541 unread in my LUG list folder, my *word* you chaps have been busy while I've been away!) > ######## I bought a Moose's book on Nikon lenses.All lenses were "tremendous" or nearly, as life in North Korea. I don't remember about the 2/85 because I put the book in a litter-basket..."I am told" that the old 1.8/85 would be better.I've never experimented. I had owned the 1.8 AF which was a very good lens except at full aperture because of a lack of contrast. But I prefer my good old elmarit 90R. Dominique Pellissier