Hi ??, Thanks, I guess I should have specified better in my original email, I was actually a bit more of a user review of its sharpness wide open. As I seem to use my lenses wide open quite a bit, so I would require reasonable sharpness.
Thanks, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Knut Knut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:09 PM Subject: Re: 43mm wide open comparison? > Look at: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/ > > when comaring lenses, you should always compare the same f-stops. Extracting > the data for f2.0: > > Lens: Center resolution: corner resolution: > (lines per mm) (lines per mm) > > > FA 43/1.9 55 55 > FA 50/1.4 69 55 > FA 35/2.0 78 69 > > > So from the performance point of view the FA 43/1.9 is actually rather poor. > There is a love factor for built quality in the FA 43 (It is also expensive > so owner feel it MUST be good). From the performance point of view possibly > only the bokeh might actually be better in the FA 43/1.9. For Portrait the > FA 43 might give good results, since less sharp (but contrasty) portraits > are usually felt to be better. On the other hand 43mm is not the typical > portrait lens. > > At f8 the FA 43 is great. But so are the other two lenses. > > Hope this helps, > Knut > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Fotos ist der einfachste Weg, Ihre Fotos auszudrucken und anderen > Benutzern zur Verf�gung zu stellen: > http://photos.msn.de/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 . - 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 .
