Your shots look kind of similar to some of my shots, made with the A2.8/20mm. I guess a lot has to do with choise of film - as well as the scanner (I guess yours may be fine - mine is not good enough for 35mm negs - it's an Epson perfection 3200 photo). I personally believe, that in order to get photographs as sharp as an excellent, digital camera, you may have to use a scanner, that probably will cost just as much as a digital camera....
Did you use proper shade/hood on the lens? Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. august 2004 11:52 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: 15/3.5 sharpness? Just had my first roll of 15/3.5 pictures back. The first thing I have noticed is, they aren't very sharp (maybe I should redo the test on cloudy day). Okay, I knew the Pentax one is the least sharp of all 15mm (Zeiss, Leica, Nikkor), but do these picture look okay (I reckon the actual films are sharper than scans)? They were taken with Konica Centuria Super 100, and scanned by Minolta Scan Elite F-2900 (2820dpi). http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/pentax_1535 Also, this short test shows f11 seems to be the optimal aperture. f3.5 is pretty bad on sharpness, f5.6 is okay, but certainly not good. Manual focusing is next to impossible without the magnifier because everything appears so small (right everybody has been saying that everything will be in focus virtually, but it doesn't seem to be the case to me). Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _________________________________________________________________ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
