i don't think a constant magnifrication factor would be helpful. the whole idea was that i was taking exactly the same picture twice, the second time putting a "loupe" between the lens and a sensor. if i had a constant magnification factor, that would be a test of quality of the TC (which is so-so, i know that), but not the lens itself. i completely agree that at f5.6 it wo9uld have been much more interesting. but what's surprising is that even when the lens is so severely handicapped (f22, iso 1600), the difference is "in your face". btw, the whole test took ~10min or so, between the beers :) best, mishka
On 4/8/06, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It really helps if you can maintain a constant mag factor when comparing > lenses > in this fashion. Most 35mm lenses are far from ideal at f16-22 though your > results still surprise me a little, I wouldn't have thought that the > differences would be that significant. It would be interesting to perform a > similar test with all lenses at f5.6 :-) > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
