There's a difference between saying "What lenses do I like that
worked on my film cameras and which of them work nicely on my
digital cameras?" vs trying to evaluate actual performance of
lenses on the two different imaging systems.
For instance: the various comments on the Pentax-A 28/2.8 that
I've read tell me that it's not a particularly good performer.
In actual use, I find it a mite soft wide open, very sharp a
stop down, with beautiful oof rendering and fine detailing, zero
CA on the *istDS. I haven't tested it regarding its performance
on a 35mm film camera vs on the DS and it might truly suck on
film, but I'd recommend it to anyone as an inexpensive and
delightful lens to use on the *istDS.
(BTW, the same is true of the Canon EF28/1.8 ... It gets bad
reviews on the various photodont.com and other websites.
However, on the 10D body, it excels and produces superb results.
I suspect it's because the complaints about softness and lack of
contrast at edges and corners on 24x36mm film bug people, where
it is irrelevant on the 16x24mm format. ON the smaller format,
it's fine resolving power and beautiful oof rendering make it a
superb normal lens. But that's anecdotal information from
empirical testing, not a proper scientific evaluation.)
Godfrey
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What drivel ...
>
> Surely as a photographer you can determine what lenses work
> best for you
> after using them for thousands of exposures. If you can't,
> grab a box of
> crayons and a coloring book and make your images that way. I
> certainly
> hope your comments were tongue-in-cheek.
>
> Shel
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
> > Subject: RE: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
>
> > Re: scientific... My original words were meant to mean that
> 'taking a
> > 1000 frames with a number of lenses' on a film body and then
>
> > comparing them to ' a 1000 frames taken with the same lenses
> on a
> > digital body' is not a conclusive test. Hardly anything
> could be
> > determined unless they were taken of the very same subjects,
> from the
> > very same vantage point, under very controlled conditions.
> And then
> > studied very carefully. And then that doesn't mean that a
> given lens
> > still doesn't perform admirably in it's sweet spot.
> Obviously a lens
> > that performs admirably over a large range of apertures and
> lighting
> > conditions may be more desirable than one of more 'limited'
> usability.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
