Joe. I'm nipping a smooth VSOP here, so my I don't trust my own judgement 100%. But I just had a read up at Depht of of Focus and Depht f Field at Wikipedia. And it seems that Bills advise could be worth lisening to here. No harm in trying a different approach, is it? Judging from my read up, he may have a point.
(He may have two points, but I don't like the last one, so lets pretend we did not read that one ;-) ) MaritimTim 2008/3/23, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Joe, I think you ran the test backwards. Depth of field is not the > issue, depth of focus is. As focal length extends, depth of field > decreases, but depth of focus increases. Try calibrating your 50-135 at > 50mm, and then see how it does at the long end. I am starting to think > that my long time eschewing of zoom lenses may not be such a bad thing > though. > > William Robb > > ----- > > Not following, Bill. At 135 mm the lens definitely was improved by a -4 > AF adjustment. So if testing at some other focal length gives a > different result, I will have soft images at 135 mm. > > Joe > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
