On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:26 PM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm forced to agree. > > This is what comes from using lenses on a test bed instead of in the > real world. > > I only ever resort to this kinda' testing if my real world shots show > optical deficiencies. > > Cheers, > > Dave
Thats were i noticed my problems. At a band shoot, the macro work. My tests just confirmed that Dave > > > > > At 08:50 AM 9/04/2008, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective > >DA*16-50 in captivity. Perhaps I shouldn't look too closely at it! ;-) > > > >G > > > >On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I think the DA* 16-50/2.8 is an aberration. All my other lenses > > > check out quite nicely. Some adjustment dials them in more > > > precisely, but they're all within acceptable range. Apparentlly > > > there's some problem involved in the manufacture of the DA* 16-50 > > > that sometimes results in a plane of focus that's not uniform. > > > That's a different kind of problem than front focus or back focus. > > > It can't be corrected with the controls or even with normal service > > > procedures. That being said, I'm not sure that a lot of shortcuts > > > aren't being taken in manufacturing these days. > > > -- > 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. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- 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.
