On 08/07/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look, I take exception to the reviews of lenses that I use regularly. > On the 43mm ltd. he says that "CAs could be a little lower for a > fix-focal" so I downloaded and examined a couple of his sample images > that should easily show CA if there was any. I opened them in Photoshop > and blew it up about 3-4x to see what evidence there was for CA. I saw > plenty of artifacts some bloom, (but not much), but nothing that could > be definitively called CA. In real world use I'd have to say there > wasn't any to worry about, the lens clearly out preforms the sensor in > normal use.
Well as you likely recall I owned a 43 LTD for a few years but found it to offer me less than the performance I required so I sold it. Of my current lenses he has tested six of the same models, one FA version of an A version lens that I own, another lens that I used to own and one 3rd party in another mount. I can honestly say that I pretty much agree entirely with his assessment of each of them (granted none were particularly cheap lenses). That's good enough for me. Back to CA, it's a funny one, often it's not anywhere near as obvious in low contrast/saturated areas, so some shots really seem to show it well and others tend to mask it but it's still there if you look (read pixel peep). CA is of interest to me as it's the one type of anomaly apart from edge sharpness that can really degrade the quality of stitched panos, geometric distortion and vignetting are of far less consequence. So I do tend to take special note of lenses capabilities in these problem areas (i.e. I readily admit to pixel peeping). -- 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
