Joe, OK, as soon as I'll get the Sigma 70-200, I'll setup another test, using maximum care about focusing, shake and so on.
Ciao, Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 2:38 AM Subject: SMC F 70-210 f4.0-5.6 (was:: Zoom Lens for ist-D) > Dario and Jim, > > I am puzzled by your findings on this lens. These are the first negative > comments I have seen on it. I suppose there could be much sample > variation in it, but I would wonder then how it got its fine reputation. > Here's an extract from my recent post, comparing it to the Sigma 70-200 > f2.8 on the *ist D: > > "Next I tested it against the Sigma. Both at 200 mm. on the tripod. > Across the board, the old SMC F has a warmer rendition and better > contrast than the Sigma. Now the surprise: At 200 mm. wide open (f5.6), > the old Pentax consumer lens was slightly sharper than the Sigma "pro" > lens at 5.6. At f8 and 11 the Sigma was sharper, but again the Pentax's > rendition was warmer and with better contrast." > > Dario, your images at 190 mm. look like there could have been > camera/lens shake. Putting this lens and the *ist D on a tripod gives > you a light combination, which I found can still wobble. Did you use the > 2-second delay and shoot on a day with no wind? > > Also, if you used AF, was it central sensor or did you let the camera > choose? This lens has a very long (for AF lenses) AF throw. I find that > even at long distances, they lens will consider differences of even a > meter or so to be out of focus, and refocus itself. If the camera picked > the sensor, much of your image could be out of focus with this lens. > > I think a better test would be to photograph a brick wall from about 20 > meters at f5.6 and 8.0. I did something similar to this. > > That said, the 70-210 is not very good close up. > > Joe >
