Originally posted by dude163 Hey all I have a question that borders on heresy
How do the Takumars compare to lenses by Zeiss and Leica , I keep lusting after them and I have read a few reviews that say that some of the Takumars are close to, and in some reviews the 50mm f.4 jewel is better than them
I may have already answered my own question but Im convinced that staying with the KX and the manual Taks is the way to go for a few reasons for me , do you agree? or am I full of it?
1: Expense, all my taks cost under 250 bucks for the lot , Leica has some that are 3 grand!
2: availability , I can get Takumars all over the place
3: Snobbery: would the brand name make me take better shots? , I dont think it would
4: Pixel peeping: would I really notice the extra 5-10% sharpness? I take lots of portraits, perhaps sharpness isnt what I need after all?
5: Act of god: if the kids broke a tak or my KX Id be miffed, if they broke a Leica I'd go postal
I think it all comes down to a few principals in life that I was discussing with a friend the other day. The best tools won't help you be the best mechanic, the best golf club won't make you the best golfer, the best clothing won't make you an outdoorsman, the best gun won't let you shoot better, etc...
Despite what the magazines would have you believe, there's still a lot of things money can't buy - talent, skill, knowledge, wisdom, practice, patience, training, and all the things that have REAL value in life.
So, yeah, fancy lenses make things easy, convenient, or fast - but rarely, if ever, better. But rich people gotta spend that money on something, right?