Um no, there are lots of lenses without any visibly noticable light falloff on the edges of the intended format, mostly long ones.
I would not agree with the statement that all lenses could be considered "optimized for APS-C" just because they dont have as much light falloff or corner sharpness falloff on APS-C as FF. There are other factors like overall sharpness and flare control situations too, not to mention that with Pentax, at this time, digital recording is tied to AS-C format so if there are optical considerations for digital sensors, most FF lenses would NOT be "optimized for APS-C"(digital sensored). JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:46 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA* 60-250 at B&H Paul Stenquist wrote: >Well, there you have it. Only minor vignetting. Would that increase or >decrease at a smaller aperture? It's probably falloff, rather than vignetting, and it would improve at smaller apertures. >In any case, it's probably useable on full frame, although I would >think it's optimized for APS-C. Since it was originally designated the "D-FA 60-250" I expect it was designed for full-frame (they probably changed the designation to DA when they decided to eliminate the aperture ring), but since virtually all lenses show some light falloff at wide apertures and are sharper in the center than the corners, any lens could be considered "optimized for APS-C" :) -- 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.
