G'day Paul, Okay I worded that wrong, informal tests aren't my only reference, but they are a helpful guide.
And I see Godfrey's point, and your right it's valid. But surely you can see where I'm coming from. How do you make a judgement on the performance of a lens you might want to buy, if you have no access to it? As I mentioned, I had to order in special every new Pentax lens I own. As with the recent discussion about the K 135 f2.5. I can only judge it's performance based on the comments & sample images provided buy those of you who have used one. Your sample from the wake boarding series is stunning BTW. Until this thread, I could have walked straight past one in the second hand store and not even realised how good it is (I can't afford to buy every Pentax lens I come across in the hope that it's a gem :-). But you can be sure that if I ever find one I'll snap it up <g>. And this is one of the reasons why I subscribe to the PDML, so I can learn from others experience. Dave S On Apr 6, 2005 6:33 PM, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 11:26 PM, David Savage wrote: > > > > > These informal tests are the only thing I have to go on when I'm > > looking at buying a lens. > > > Some of the informal tests we saw here in the last week were so > obviously flawed as to be quite laughable. I think that's the point. > Rely on them if you will, but Godfrey's point is quite valid. > Paul > >
