>If there's one thing I've learned it's that there are degrees of >"hopelessly" and "horrible", and as many definitions of them as there are >sets of eyes in the world. In fact, I've seen pictures from hopelessly >soft >lenses with horrible bokeh hanging on gallery walls. It's enough to make >me >wonder if I am seeing what other people see when they look at the same >pictures. I don't see the results from my FA*85mm f/1.4 as hopelessly soft >with horrible bokeh.
Rather subjective I guess. >Maybe somebody dropped yours on the floor before you bought it and, though >there were no signs of external damage, perhaps something was knocked out >of >alignment internally. You should have tried to exchange it as soon as you >noticed these problems. It's not an inexpensive lens and you may have been >thrilled and delighted by the replacement. Mine was bought new, after the lens had been introduced a few years (so if there was any manufacturing problems, I expected Pentax should fix them already). There was no sign of impact on both the lens and the box. If there was impact damage, it would be inside the Pentax factory I guess. Consider it's a simple prime lens and misalignment is unlikely. Sample variation maybe, but I don't usually buy this excuse. regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
