On 10 Sep 2002 at 22:19, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN "HAD". What you have is a long lens > with a "macro" feature, not a true macro lens. Like I said, > I've read many articles on optical design and true macro > lenses are optimized for closeup magnifications not infinity.
Hi Jon, Well I've been "HAD" then, it focuses to 1:1 without tubes, it is sharper and has better contrast than any of my "true" Pentax macro lenses (A*200f4, A100f.2.8 and A50f2.8) or any of the CZ Macro lenses I've owned over the years In fact it is visibly more crisp when viewed though a good finder. So I'm glad to have been "HAD" in this case and will continue to be with enthusiasm :-) If you had checked the URLs you would have seen that the lens is constructed of 11 lens elements, it's rear group doesn't move whilst focussing either, just like the A100f2.8 and the A*200f4. A fixed rear element can't recover lost resolution however hard it tries. In any case my experience bears out the theory that I sited. Have you actually used any of these lenses? I have an associate off list who is a keen macro shooter and has good experience with Pentax macro glass of various genres, he has recently purchased the Lanthar based on my recommendation. I'll try to find out for you if he feels that he's been "HAD". Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
