On May 26, 2007, at 9:10 PM, AlexG wrote: > What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the > 50) ...
Um ... errrr ... AF isn't infallible. I've had AF errors happen with every and any lens, and every AF camera I've ever had. For best, most accurate focusing with an SLR, nothing beats a good focusing screen, good viewfinder optics, an eyepiece magnifier and manual focus. > ... An old photography book I have says you could really > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. LOL!!! You should look up Jerry Uelsmann ... He's been doing tricks with photography since the 1950s that would astound you. LONG before anyone even dreamed of Photoshop! And before him, Man Ray, Ansel Adams, virtually every great photographer and printer who ever learned how to make a print... > The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is moving fast in a high magnification field of view. The FA43 is an exceptional lens. So is the FA50/1.4, but the 43 produces a sweeter rendering quality. There's no good metric for that, you either see it or you don't. But both are good enough for practical purposes to do anything you want ... I would choose between any of the Pentax prime lenses for FoV, nothing else is going to be that far different. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
