With film, I have seen real performance differences between the Canon "ordinary" lenses, and the "pro" L series. It is real, not just numbers on paper. [This does not, however, imply that great work requires expense, or even that more expense will yield greater work.] I would tend to think, though honestly do not have the numbers to prove it, that any of todays $300 lenses are generally better that those available to 35mm photographers in the 60's and 70's. Fantastic work by great artists during that period. [OK, we really don't need flames about legendary German optics; most of us couldn't afford it.] While true that "digital" lenses could be optimized for performance for the smaller sensor area, generally 35mm SLR lenses ALREADY perform better in the central area than at the edges of the frame. I looked quickly this morning, and could not find a comparison with some of the "digital" optimized lenses. It would be nice for someone here to provide a comparison; same proce range, etc. [This is for the Canon 85mm f/1.8 $325] I would not feel in any way "ashamed" by using one of these on a brand new digital body. However, an "optimized" digital lens may indeed have better performance, be lighter, cheaper, etc. Does anyone have a good comparison? Here, I've shown MTF curves. But I believe performance in the central region behaves similarly for other imparements; distortion, chromatic aberation... ____ As for "comfy in hands", I know that the Canon digitals are very similar in handling to the Canon film cameras. They found a way that their customers like, and are tending to stay with it. I'm not sure if this is the philosophy used by Nikon or other manufacturers? If you are happy the way a Canon film camera handles, you'll likely be happy with the way a Canon digital handles. [This seems to be the same with SLR's and Point&Shoots, BTW.]