On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:19, Keith Whaley wrote: > > How about the "Soft = blurry" world? > > IMMHO, if 'soft' is what everybody calls that lens, I'll stay away from it. > > Used to be, my eyes saw the world that way. I gladly paid a fair amount of > money to CORRECT that deficiency. >
Same here - this is the kind of image quality I get when there's moisture between my lens elements or something. It's not my cuppa tea. But then again, I don't care much for ANY filters/trickery between the subject/lens/film other than the lens itself. I realize I open up a huge can of worms with the word "trickery" but, yeah: starburst filters, "half" filters (like to darken the sky but leave the ground lighter for landscapes) and all that *usually* just annoy me. I'm a real stick-in-the-mud about that kind of thing. But, as they say, "that's why there's chocolate AND vanilla". -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [email protected] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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.
