Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wdl1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!wunder
From: wunder@wdl1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Re: 35-105 mm lense for Canon
Message-ID: <256@wdl1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 01:24:28 EST
Article-I.D.: wdl1.256
Posted: Mon Feb  4 01:24:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 03:41:50 EST
Sender: notes@wdl1.UUCP
Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:oblio:-21500:wdl1:7300001:000:924
Nf-From: wdl1!wunder    Feb  3 20:52:00 1985

Aobut the Canon/Kiron/etc. debate:

Actually, the lens mount is very expensive to manufacture.  Most off-brand
lenses are not as durable or well balanced as the native (like Canon)
lens.  This really does matter if you are going to do a lot of motor
drive photography, or change lenses a lot (like the newspaper stuff that
I did in school).  Focusing and zooming cams are also expensive to do
right.  They should be smooth, tight, and need a minimum of lubrication.
The same is true for the aperature and the stop-down mechanisms (this
is what falls apart during motor drive use).

I always use fixed focal lengths anyway.  I figured that I would never
have enough money to buy a really good zoom anyway.  Now I have the
money, but I'm too attached to my 35/2 and my 85/1.8 (talk about sharp!)
to carry around a nasty, slow, heavy zoom lens.

So why do I carry around my heavy F-1?   I don't know.

-- photo by w. underwood