NO lenses are as good on DSLR as they are on best film because DSLRS still dont have the resolution of the highest resolution films.
This is most likely a limitation of your APS DSLR, not your lenses. I say most likely because your making an assumption that these lenses do not image as good on you DSLR because of digital sensor issues, when its most like due to format size and sensor resolution issues. You would have to wait for a good FF pentax body and compare your 135mm lens to a 90mm DA lens or your 100mm lens to a 66mm DA lens and then compared which is better to be sure which is better wouldnt you? And you last statement is totally backwards/wrong. On a ff sensor, MORE ( more than twice as much ) of the FF lens image is used, so the fixed abberations of the lenses become LESS noticable, not more noticable. (The exception to this would be any lens which actally has sensor related issues vs. film, but I havent seen or heard any hard data on that yet, as we dont have the Pentax FF bodies to make the quick comparisons possible). APS makes normal lens abberations ( not film vs. sensor related stuff ) more noticable because you only use a small portion of the FF lens image on a APS body which is like "zooming in" on the flaws. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DagT Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? Just a small comment: My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. DagT Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" > lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, > the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture > to say, they just work > better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had a full > frame camera that matched what the full frame lenses can do and were > designed for, you would reverse which ones you are calling superb and > which ones you are calling not performing as well. I dont > think its fair or show's much understanding > to describe them that way when you are using > DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses > which are optimized for FF but not using > them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure > there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point > but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming > well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body > that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to > replace >> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >> expense > >> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >> lenses.... I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >> performance of newer varieties. > > It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I > depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want > the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I > paid for. > > When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a > bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I > used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold > them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I > took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job > for my work. > > I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely > hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three > superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old > lenses which don't perform quite as well. > > G > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
