On 9 Feb 2004 at 20:23, John Mustarde wrote: > I am surprised by the comparative performance of the Pentax - it looks > nearly unusable until f5.6, as opposed to the Voigtlander which is > fairly sharp at f2.5.
Hi John (& JCO), I wouldn't quite say that, I guess flare had a bit to do with the severity of the results however both lenses were fitted with recommended hoods. I guess it's more the magnification, consider that if your monitor is resolving 72pixels per inch the full image would be about 42 inches across. In any case the instances where I use the f1.8 wide open the sort of differences that are illustrated really don't matter and at f5,6 they are pretty much equal. What it boils down to is that my f1.8 is used for special tasks and my V is now my all round medium tele. I used to own the SMC K135/2.5 and the A100/2.8 macro and I sold them both soon after acquiring the V, killed two birds. (JCO) Unfortunately I've never owned any of the Pentax 120mm lenses but it definitely would make an interesting comparison, I do think the V would fare better WRT chromatic distortion at the very least. > Maybe the Pentax is optimized for a different > subject distance - or is that even possible? I don't think so but what is apparent is that their front to back DOF ratios differ as the lenses are stopped down. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
