Brian wrote:
> Perhaps, the apparent agreement of the results from what Paal may feel
> are two meaningless tests is equally meaningless--but if CdI is "way out
> in the woods" with their test results, they've got company.
[snip]
> 3) I agree with Paal that the on-film results each photographer brings
> home are what really matter. I happen to like the FA* 85/1.4 very much,
> but I've never used the lens at anything close to infinity focus, it's
> easily sharp enough for my purposes, and a bit of light fall-off wide
> open just saves burning in the edges of my prints. Works for me.
I have no problem with lens test on an isolated basis. CDI may give a lens five stars
but it stop making sense when better leses achieve three stars only. The whole thing
is relative. They may well give the FA* 85/1.4 five stars but then they should give
the A* 135/1.8 six or seven stars. Test that show optical quality at close focusing
distances only is compromised anyway.
I also have problems with the FA* lens as any kind of benchmark. It is the only lens
I've sold due to optical standards. It simply isn't good enough for me. True, it
performs well at close focusing distances but it doesn't really give sharp images
otherwise until F:8. Even the FA* 28-70/2.8 is significantly sharper at eg. F 2.8 at
70mm setting. That says a lot.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
