24 - 105 mm f/4 L IS II

[Admin US West]

Ken Rockwell is not to be taken seriously, neither is Canon Rumors, its for fun.

In reality, a good photographer can work around the shortcomings of almost any decent lens. The real result is the affect of the image on the viewer, not the technical aspects.

 

[kubelik]

Ken Rockwell is not to be taken seriously, neither is Canon Rumors, its for fun.

In reality, a good photographer can work around the shortcomings of almost any decent lens. The real result is the affect of the image on the viewer, not the technical aspects.

let's be honest, there are tools that are admirable for their workmanship and stunning quality, the ability to perform excellently and be a great return on investment. then there are tools that make you stare at it and say "why on earth [does this even exist]?" as someone working in the design industry, I think failed projects are amazing because clearly a great company put a lot of great minds together ... and still managed to shoot a blank. it happens to everyone (more than most would like to admit) but I think anyone in the industry knows when to just relax and have a laugh at a really failed attempt (this usually gets easier after a decade or two)

it's like saying "oh, a car is just a vehicle to get you from point A to point B, none are better or worse" rather than admitting there are some remarkably laughable feats of engineering attempting to fob themselves off as cars over the years. I think we should celebrate the great ones, but I don't think we shouldn't have a laugh at the lousy ones and do our best to ensure it never happens again