Thanks to all who commented. But this is a bad example of what I was trying to demonstrate. Looking at it in the morning with glasses on I have to say you're all correct. The grass is in focus. That's a matter of photographer failure or continuous autofocus failure rather than the lens being out of whack. It's not out by three feet! :-)). Probably didn't catch another autofocus update before pulling the trigger. I processed this late at night and was smitten by the image. But I can't really detect soft without glasses -- or a diopter adjustment. So there you have it. But I do like Grace's form, and I am planning an NFL career for her. On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 > > Two things here. > First: I'm training Grace to be a placekicker in the NFL. Note the > perfect form. Hand out for balance. Head down. She's a natural. > > Second: Shot this with the obviously defective DA* 16-50/2.8 . Looks > okay, doesn't it? And most shots will. Real world shooting doesn't > always reveal defects. But someday when shooting a nearly flat scene > wide open, one side of the shot will be a bit soft. The lens costs > far too much to tolerate that kind of performance. Sometimes it's > good to test. But only rarely:-). > Paul > > -- > 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.
-- 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.
