Well, you can test for a flat field in minutes. Just shoot the old brick wall at f2.8. But make sure you're squared off to the wall, since DOF at that stop is fairly minimal. Paul On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:22 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > I'm feeling the same way. Not having done any formal tests with > it...of course I got the first one on the block so no one was worried > at that point. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 5:50:36 PM, you wrote: > > GD> Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective > GD> DA*16-50 in captivity. Perhaps I shouldn't look too closely at > it! ;-) > > GD> G > > GD> 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.
-- 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.
