I think the word 'setting' should be emphasized, in your statement below. Why do you believe that to be true ~ to account for the lens construction material's expansion and contraction, as another on this thread has said? That the markings are only good at room temperature, and if you soak the lens at far different temperatures than that, there has to be some accommodation?
Infinity is usually difficult to focus upon, so without AF, which I think doesn't focus on it either, in spite of arguments to the contrary, how do you tell what is right? I couldn't depend on a frenzel or split screen, frankly, to tell the difference between infinity and 100 feet! Except for focal lengths over 1000 inches or so, I don't think any rather normal lens could either... Ao, the question arises, why focus to 'beyond' the infinity setting? Do you suppose anyone can tell the difference between 100 feet and 1000 ft.? Or between 1000 ft. and infinity, on the film or the print? Do you suppose that an AF lens can, regardless of how it measures the distance between lens and subject? I suggest that maybe just setting the lens barrel on the infinity mark might be just fine, if that's what you want to take a picture of. Just some thoughts on the matter... Keith Whaley P�l Jensen wrote: > > David wrote: > > > I have a lens that is little off when attempting to focus to > > infinity--instead of moving the focus all the way to the end, > > you have to back it off a little. It is only with this one > > lens and not a problem of the camera with other lenses. > All long telephoto lenses and many auto focus lenses are designed to focus past the >infinity setting. > Most likely you have such a lens. - 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 .
