And WRT your testing and comparison of D-FA and FA 50/2.8 macro, how did
you judge focus?
Which body did you use? Did you focus by the screen, did you use focus
confirmation in the finder, did you vary distances slightly? I have
experienced deviations between the screen image and the final picture in
the past, so I don't trustlens sharpness tests that don't take this into
account, too. I do not want to say that you did sloppy testing. I just
want to propose that the tested lenses might be even better, if you
don#t trust the image on the focusing screen too much.
----------
Pancho, I conduct my lens tests for myself. In this case, the test was
to help me decide whether to keep the D FA 50. I post the tests in case
anyone else finds them useful. Anyone who doesn't find them useful is
free to ignore them.
But to answer your questions, I used a tripod and macro focusing rail. I
set the lenses to 1:2, and focused using the rail. The focus was judged
by my right eye, which is middle aged and fallible, but not
systematically biased. If there were any problems in the focusing, the
problems applied to both lenses tested, and to all apertures. The test
was done on my *ist D.
If there was a problem in the tests, it was that there were slight
differences in distance to subject in the corners. That's why I threw
the corners out of the comparison. I focused on the center of the screen.
"I just want to propose that the tested lenses might be even better...."
Than what? I compared them against each other. They are both good. The
FA 50 Macro is renowned as a good performer. My test showed (to my
satisfaction) that the D FA 50 Macro is optically a worthy successor.
Joe
- Re: Update on D FA 50 F2.8 Macro Joseph Tainter
-
