Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
Eddie you misunderstand me. I meant your criticism of my post can't be serious.
I wasn't being critical of your post. The part of my statement you quoted led me to believe you saw no purpose in "lesser" lenses. Years ago, I printed for others, both in a commercial lab and on my own. For those prints I used Schneiders, Rodenstocks, and Nikon enlarging lenses, as those delivered the results the client was paying for. I still use those lenses for my personal work.

Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
Also I would suggest in addition to reading the OP to look at the study I linked to and also read my posts. I never said all a well conceived photograph is is, "the utmost in sharpness and resolution." I think if you take the time and actually READ the material I linked to and my own posts you will find where I and Ctein actually say quite the opposite. But again you have to actually read what we wrote. You can't just argue against strawmen.
As for Ctein, I had the book when it was available printed, and have the pdf. I respect much of what he writes, and even think he's worth listening to when I disagree with him.

My point, once again, is that I see too many questions about "what's the best", here and elsewhere. I still maintain that the biggest impediment we face in making expressive images isn't the equipment. It's in ourselves. We need to improve with what we have available, rather than wait to own state of the art. Knowing that there's something better often has a paralyzing effect on people. Doing something with less is far better than doing nothing at all.