It is indeed a rather interesting lens.
Thanks for posting the info.
As for 2:1, I am thinking about how often it gets practical (for me).
I've used the D-FA 100/2.8 with 1.7x for a few things like a fruit-fly
caught by a spider, etc.
I know that when I tried to stack 2x on top of that it was too much (and
the image was degraded - probably too much glass and it might also be
that I was hitting the diffraction limit from the effective aperture).
I posted a few photos back in 2007:
http://komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/Raspberries/100-2_0x-1_7x/IMGP9608.jpg
http://komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/Raspberries/100-2_0x-1_7x/IMGP9609.jpg
The quality of the shots taken with DFA 100/2.8 + x1.7 was reasonable
(you may like or dislike the photos themselves- different people had
different view on the composition,etc.):
http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/Raspberries/IMGP9503.jpg
http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/Raspberries/IMGP9527.jpg
Here is the old message describing those:
https://www.mail-archive.com/pdml%40pdml.net/msg422565.html
So, yes, I would benefit from that lens occasionally.. But not sure, - how
often.
Cheers,
Igor
On 4/22/2015 6:54 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
Tempting indeed. I think that all PK users should get one before the
realize that the cool kids don't make their lenses in a PK mount.
Reading about it, it is also funny how many people think that 1:2 is
the same as 2:1. Pentax made only one macro lens that does 1:1 and
that was the old preset Macro-Takumar. The rest are all 1:2. This lens
(at 2:1) is 4x that.
--
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.
