Joseph Tainter schrieb:
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.
Joe,
I read your test report very carefully, as I was very interested.
Probably I shouldn't post to the list when it's time to go to bed :-)
Certain ideas/doubts about your testing method came maybe too straight
out, I did not mean to offend you. I learned the hard way that focusing
screens are not alway that reliable, especially with fast lenses. With
the MZ-S, results show that focus confirmation in the viewfinder is
often more reliable than what I see on the screen. Been there, done that.
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.
I wish I had one...
"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.
Better than themselves in first place. It was your observation of the DA
being sharper at f2.8 than at f4 made me think that optimal results
could be probably achieved through focus bracketing. This should be easy
when using a focus rail. And an istD, which doesn't mean the film waste
I happen to do some times.
All in all it's good news, nice to hear that pentax still build some
good primes.
