>There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed >to >complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy >photographer. I take umbrage with that. > >William Robb >
Understood. I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some data on the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" phrase is certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little sceptical, the same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. It sounds good but tells me nothing substantial. It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards lens compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally optimized" lenses as being especially desirable or preferrable to all those compatible lenses, which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing sense, but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of the newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot when projected on an APS sized sensor. I'm not arguing they don't have other desirable features. It's not that I'm a disbeliever, it's just that I know it's in a camera/lens company's best interest to sell more lenses. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
