Hi Raimo, but when the lens would be the reason for the cut off, why is the corona of an unsharp light source not a circle ? I would scan the test tomorrow and send it to you, so you quote yourself. Interested ? Can you read German ? Otherwise I would try to translate the chapter with the explanation of the vignetting in the camera to English. There has been tested amongst others also a Nikon lens ( IIRC also a 1,2 ) which gave less vignetting by the camera than the Pentax one. But that's also only from memory. IIRC there has been stated at the PDML in the past, that the reason why there are no f1,0 lenses is the vignetting of the camera, finally limited by the diameter of the K mount. The light coming to the film is only with long lenses a nearly a parallel beam. For shorter lenses, I think the beam is convergend in direction to the film if the lens has a very big open arperture. That would explain the vignetting by the camera.
best regards Bernd Raimo Korhonen wrote > > I�m still not convinced. > The LX mirror box is larger than the 24x36 mm frame. The LX > mirror is larger than what MZ-5n or MZ-S have. Maybe it is > indeed a typo? > Like Antti-Pekka wrote, some telephotos have even larger rear > elements but no cut-off. So I�m inclined to think that the > cut-off is happening inside the lens. I would need to examine > the lay-out diagram of the lens - I found it and I looked at > it. Guess what - the 2.8/40 seems to have even larger rear element - 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 .
