On 1 Oct 2005 at 8:03, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hi Rob ... > > I think they key word here is "most", although I'm not speaking with a lot > of experience yet, as I'm just starting to see what results can be obtained > from > some of my older lenses. This far, of the four or five that I've checked, one > just doesn't look sharp at all - although I will check it again - and another > shows lots of purple fringing, which I never noticed with film. I seem to > recall you putting up some pics showing one lens or another that lacked > sharpness on the digi.
Hi Shel, I think the key is that it's far easier to be critical of a digital capture when it at 200% on a 'puter screen. Most lenses that perform badly on film are bad on a DSLR, it just depends how critical the viewer is. I think also that you'll find purple fringing is more a sensor issue than a lens one. Lenses that suffer CA (red/green, blue/yellow shifts) tend to be more visible, but again I still think most were poor on film to but just not viewed as critically. In any case even pretty bad lens CA can be remedied when shooting RAW so it's not too much of an issue. I assume one major reason that some lenses look like better performers on a DSLR than film is that their poor edge performance has been effectively masked by cropping. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
