I agree that some lenses are more prone to fringing than others. For example, my A 400/5.6 exhibits fringing quite frequently in high contrast situations. It's even worse with the A2XS converter mounted -- not surprisingly. However, I've yet to encounter a serious fringing problem with the DA 50-200. However, I could easily understand that there would be sample variation with consumer grade zooms. I also believe that more than a handful of people like this lens. I've made enough money with it to pay for it ten times over. And no one purchased any warts. That's a lens test. Paul On Jul 7, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 08/07/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I find it hard to take seriously a reviewer who attributes digital >> bloom >> as a lens problem and not a sensor problem, (see his review of the >> 10-17 >> mm fisheye). He seems to find and emphasize the fly in the >> ointment to >> the extent of manufacturing a fly, in all of his conclusions. I >> don't >> know if he does this for other manufactures or just Pentax, but >> then I >> shoot Pentax more or less exclusively these days, so reading >> reviews of >> Canon Nikon Olympus and Sony specific lenses isn't really going to >> do me >> much good.. He's not on the same level as K-R, at least he actually >> seems to use the equipment he writes his tests on, but he does >> seem to >> need to find at least one fault in every review if not several. His >> conclusions on 50-200mm seem to be at odds with the real world >> experience of most everyone on this list who uses one. Admittedly >> this >> is a Pentax equipment cheering section, but if we're disappointed >> with a >> piece of Pentax equipment we'll savage it. > > Sensor bloom or purple fringing seems, for whatever reasons, to be > catalyzed, exaggerated or exacerbated by the use of certain lenses, I > don't know why but it's pretty easy to prove. Some surmise that > longitudinal CA + saturation is the culprit, whatever the cause some > lenses do tend to create PF. > > On this issue and all others Klaus seems no more critical of Pentax > than any other brand, it's pretty plain to see if you read even a > handful of reviews. So I really don't understand how you seem to have > arrived at the conclusion that Klaus is anything but matter of fact, > his reviews to my mind are some of the least biased and most straight > forward and factual on the web. > > The fact that a handful of people seem to love the 50-200mm warts and > all is no surprise, that's good, it's what makes us all different but > this is very different from an impartial technical assessment of lens > performance. > > Case in point is the DA 16-45/4, I've read so many comments saying how > perfect it is and how it has no CA. But actually having used one now > for some time I know well its limitations and Klaus's straight > assessment of the same lens model virtually confirmed all my issues > with it, I was not alone any longer. > > For what it's worth I don't have any association with him but for a > few brief email exchanges, he seems very genuine and I'm glad that he > produced the site much the same way as I'm glad that Boz made the > Pentax K-mount pages. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > 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
