The only type the uneven focus field problem might show up is if your shooting something where the subject is approximately equidistant from one end of the frame to the next. That's why this could go unnoticed for quite a while. I have a number of good shots that I produced with this lens before I noticed the problem. (Not including the one that I posted:-). Paul On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > ;-) > > I haven't used this example of the 16-50 to really say one way or > another whether it might be subtley defective ... I simply prefer to > use prime lenses most of the time anyway, in this focal length range. > It's one of the lenses I have for 'evaluation', so I suppose I really > should examine it a bit more critically. > > The shooting I've done with it, however, has all looked pretty good. > I just went through 300 some exposures made with it at a wide variety > of focal length, distance and scene types: I see no signs of any > focusing or sharpness issues, other than those caused by my own > sloppiness in using it. > > Godfrey > > > On Apr 8, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I would look closely. I never test lenses. But I have taken advantage >> of the focal point adjustment on the K20D. It's worthwhile. And when >> this lens showed aberrant behavior, I tested it further. I could have >> settled for what was essentially a defective lens. And if the chips >> fell right I may never have noticed it in real world shooting. You >> can always blame it on camera shake or simply missing the mark on the >> focal point. But there are times when it's best to know that one's >> equipment works correctly. Or one can choose blissful ignorance. >> Paul >> On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:26 PM, David Savage 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 >>> >>> >>> 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! ;-) >>>> > > -- > 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.
