Kenneth,
> Jerome, I have a 600mm FA that uses 43mm filters.
okay... now I'm confused. Pentax tech support says 49mm. Pentax website
says 43mm... Boz: 43mm... B&H: 49mm.... (d'oh!)
but... um... I guess I can just measure it, huh? Or take the lens to the
store with me (which I've been trying to avoid). Also...
> I'm told that there needs to be a filter in that holder.
And that's exactly my point. I've heard that before as well, which is what
got me wondering. If it was *designed* to perform optimally with a filter
in there then I guess I better get one in there. But I've tossed this
question back and forth for over a year now with Pentax/Colorado, and get
a different answer every time I do. So finally I thought I'd inquire as to
how it was shipped. I'd assume that they'd ship it with one if it was
really "needed"... but maybe not.
> FWIW, I"ve never shot anything with
> out a filter there so I can' tell you what
> the effect would be.
And for me, it's vice versa. I have never shot WITH a filter in there
(except for a circular polarizer that was in there by mistake one time...
long story)... so I don't know if it would change anything. More than 1/2
of my animal photos on my website were shot with this lens (300mm F2.8),
and the results seem fine to me... But if something (sharpness? contrast?
saturation?) is going to improve by including this additional
(needed/unneeded?) element in there, then (considering the price of the
lens) I want to know about it.
Oh well. No big deal. I guess eventually I'll just get one to stick in
there and see the effect (or lack thereof).
but it would be nice to at least hammer down the size first.
THanks for your input.
- Jerome
_____________________________
Jerome D. Coombs-Reyes, Ph.D.
Norfolk State University, Math Dept.
http://math.nsu.edu/Math/faculty/jreyes/jreyes.htm
http://exposedfilm.net
