I wish it was this simple, I've had it out and in 6 times to be sure.;-) Everything looks fine, I've had this issue since new. It's only off enough to cause problems with wide apertures, stop down a bit and the DOF hides the problem. I was convinced it was my eyes for a while but I just ran a roll thru the MX with a 50/1.4 wide open with no problem.
Thanks Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:24 PM > To: PDML > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive > > > > On Sep 25, 2005, at 6:22 PM, William Robb wrote: > > >> Nothing is certain, but I suspect this is wishful thinking. Full- > >> frame doesn't offer wider angles; it's just that there aren't many > >> very wide lenses in APS format yet. > > > > I've been told that the farther the rear nodal point is from the > > lens, the harder it is to design a good lens. > > If this is the case, there aren't going to be very many wide angles > > for the APS format, if they stay with the present flange to focal > > plane distance of 40 or so millimeters (I don't know the exact > > number offhand). > > What I'm unsure of is how much wider than a 14mm, or a 12mm in the > case of the 12-24mm zoom, you need. I had a 15mm that I used with the > Leica M once upon a time, and I found it to be not as pleasing a lens > to use as a 21mm. Wider than 100 degrees across the diagonal is, to > me anyway, truly a specialist domain. > > Godfrey >
