Since never used one, and sold the only one I owned with a film body, just to get rid of the horrible plasticy thing, I couldn't say.
Adam Maas wrote: > I've run across a couple film lenses that weren't adequate on digital, but > they seemed to all be lenses with average performance across the entire frame > rather than the more common sharp centre and poor corners. The SMC-F 35-80 > was one such lens that proved to be a poor performer on digital. > > -Adam > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> Not really. If you're buying lenses and you want to use them on a film >> body, as well as digital, they should not be in the DA series, period. >> They may cover the whole film frame but outside of the 24mm diameter >> circle required by the digital format you may find unacceptable >> vignetting, image softness, CA, barrel or pincushion distortion, etc. >> You won't have direct control of aperture, (except with a very limited >> number of cameras). These limitations alone should keep you away from >> using DA lenses for film. Going the other way is much easier. A number >> of lenses I've seen to be dogs on Film should be more than adequate on a >> DSLR. I for one am very pleased with the performance of the FA 28-200. >> Most of it's defects simply disappear on a 6mp DSLR. I expect it to >> preform almost as well on a 10mp sensor. Even the FF lenses that pixel >> peepers pick apart, (the various 24mm lenses come to mind), seem to be >> good when you're making prints. In fact I haven't got a film lens that >> isn't at least adequate on my DSLRs. >> >> Boris Liberman wrote: >> >>> I guess you're right. Though admit - if you are choosing lenses and >>> you have both film and digital body, it is extremely confusing which >>> ones you could use on both bodies and which ones you could use only on >>> the digital one. >>> >>> On 10/2/07, Margus Männik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> you are looking from the wrong side :) >>>> Those two lenses (especially 70mm) wouldn't be any smaller if made for >>>> reduced image circle. Fullframe DA21, OTOH, would have been much more >>>> complex and expensive to design. DA means "optimized for digital" and no >>>> one have ever said if DA lenses have to be usable on film bodies or not. >>>> In a meaning of products (something that you can sell NEW to people), >>>> those are beautiful history anyways. So think about the full frame >>>> coverage on DA40 and DA70 as an BONUS for true Pentax fans. No extra >>>> cost, nothing to worry about... >>>> >>>> BR, Margus >>>> >>>> >>>> Boris Liberman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Yes, Peter, that's my understanding too. >>>>> >>>>> But why then honorable sir William would take the DA 70 and probably >>>>> DA 40 lenses and mount them on his film camera? >>>>> >>>>> Like I said - a little blurred... >>>>> >>>>> Boris >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
