----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Roshchin" Subject: practical implication of flat fields -- Help needed.
> > Hello everybody! > > I think I understand what "flat field" lens means. > (e.g. per http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm ) > My question: what is the _practical_ implication of the lens with a > very flat field? > > More specifically, - if I were to use the D-FA 100/2.8 Macro as a > portrait lens - what would be the drawbacks/side-effects/...? > Both the theoretical description/explanation and personal experience > with this lens in this particular regard are appreciated. Ron's description is pretty accurate. I'm sure he would be glad to know that....... Anyway, in practical terms, it should make quite a good, though perhaps sharper than is desirable, portrait lens on film, and the same on DSLR, except that it might be a bit longer than you want. This was shot with the A100/2.8 lens on film many, many years ago: http://pug.komkon.org/02jun/virginia.html. The web image is nice, the 8x10s were to die for. I realize that this isn't the same lens as you were asking after, but I expect they aren't too far from each other in rendering abilities. This was shot with the FA200/4. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/dogportraits/lhchih01.jpg As you can see, it does quite well as a portrait lens, given the right subject. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
