Seond lense recommendation for island travel

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

You need to learn how to handle refusal, especially when you are giving unsolicited advice, your pathetic trash talking won't change a thing, and since you were not able to prove your credibility in the other topic, I assume that you don´t have any, so I will not even bother asking. And yes, I was right, you know nothing about what I do.

 

This is my last post here, so you can continue with assaults, but I will not read them. 

 

Username and I were supporting the OP, chris6500. He was feeling a bit shaky after making a big lens investment. The dude is also getting married and going on his honeymoon. You came in here after the fact, like an insensitive, know-it-all blow-hard, and told him he made a mistake. So I just pointed out the obvious weakness in your position.

 

For all your talk of making friends and influencing people, you're not doing very well, either.

[Username]

............ I would say that it produces decent images, worse

than competition, despite being the most expensive APS-C

ultra wide lens (to my knowledge.)

       

.............. I would say that it produces decent images, worse 

than competition, despite being the most expensive APS-C 

ultra wide lens (to my knowledge.) ..........     -- Del Acct 

     

"I would say he's a very decent quarterback. He HAS to

be to make the NFL and join such a respected team. But 

his record since joining does not impress me. He has the 

necessary abilities, but is just not up to the competition."    

...............................................................................................   -- Yuno Hew

 

I think the problem is non-objective assessments. Lab Test 

geeks believe they're using quantitative, therefor objective,  

data to to make choices. Problem is that while the data is 

objectively obtained, it is not objectively used when making

a choice among similar items. 

  

Cuz the data is quantitative, it leads geeks to use it for some 

sort of competitive contest. In such a contest there is no limit 

to demands for better "players" [better gear], cuz there can 

only be very few winners and only one champion, all others 

being assorted LOSERS.  

   

Problem with that system is that it defines a "merely decent" 

competitor as a loser. But focusing light onto a sensor is not 

a competition. It's just physics. Any optic that can form a half

decent image by modern standards is an excellent optic. It's

like the Olympics. The worst "loser" is still an Olympian level

athlete, waaaay above the ordinary lesser everyday players.  

   

In optics today, the good stuff is not always Olympian grade.  

Some of it did very well in the qualifiers, but didn't make the 

final cut. At today's level of tech, every "player" that made it 

to the qualifiers is an extremely capable "player" ... or lens. 

Like the quarterback mentioned above ... he has truly great

athletic ability, but is the "least great" among other "greats".

So competitively, he's not a star. 

 

Geeks want THE MOST capable of all the capable lenses. 

Apparently they see themselves as coaches assembling the 

most competitive teams to win championships. But in reality 

there is nothing competitive about forming an image. If done 

well enuf, it's done well enuf. Using quantitative instrument 

measurements to rank all the "well enufs" as "decent, better 

and best" is just a big dick measuring contest ... and we can

carry that analogy further. The sensor RECEIVES ... it's the

female in the big dick game, and it, or she, will tell you that

the best performers are multifaceted and unquantifiable.