ConDigital wrote in post #8998294
But what about his quote -
Anyone here one of those handful?
Well one thing I do remember is the first time I saw my slides comes back when I had used a Leica I saw there was something vastly different about those slides. I remember the colour seemed to have texture that I had never seen before. It reminded me of the first time I was fitted for glasses all of a sudden I saw textures in the world that I never saw before.
I suppose some zoom lenses could have the same quality (I disagree that they have to be 2.8 lenses as I think the 70-200 f4, for example, is outstanding [Being a Nikon shooter he is maybe not exposed to good f4 lenses and maybe not even good primes I don't know what Nikon offers in those regards or what experience he has]) as some primes. But Kelby does not say that primes are not better (in the most general of senses) as he does give that there are some people that can see the difference so then there must be some difference.
There are many people here who wax poetically about the difference between different 50mm lenses so I am going to guess they are not completely self-deluded and they actually do appreciate the difference between the half dozen or so 50's they own.... cough ...gasrocks ...cough.
The difference in lenses are very easily masked by other variables like noise, hand shake, processing, paper surfaces, sensor technology and the list goes on. This makes saying that one can see the difference (all the time) that much more difficult.