Read the word "might"... Paul Stenquist wrote: > No. None of the DA lenses cover a 35 mm frame, save perhaps the DA40, > which was based on a 35 mm lens. > Paul > On Feb 25, 2007, at 5:38 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > >> I think that DA as a lens prefix should be taken to mean it might >> cover >> a 35mm frame but we won't guarantee it. >> >> Toralf Lund wrote: >> >>>>> When the time >>>>> comes, Pentax will make lenses for the new sensor size (if >>>>> necessary). >>>>> In the meantime, relax and enjoy the great glass that's becoming >>>>> available now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> We might want to check if those new telephoto primes, when they >>>> come out, >>>> might also cover 35mm film. It is strange that they quickly >>>> changed them >>>> from DFA to DA, probably without any hardware change (my >>>> speculation). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Or maybe they just decided to remove the aperture ring? Perhaps "DA" >>> should just be taken to mean "optimised for digital, no aperture >>> ring" >>> and "DFA", "digitally optimised, with aperture ring" - and that no >>> assumptions about the image circle should be made based on this >>> nomenclature? >>> >>> (Now, let's see if this evolves into another discussion about >>> aperture >>> ring or no aperture ring...) >>> >>> - T >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend >> lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > >
-- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
