On 11 Sep 2002 at 4:41, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I guess I am a no compromise guy when it comes to lens usuage. > I dont want a compromised lens that can do it all. I'd rather > have the true macro for closeup and a conventional design > for infinity. That way each lens is optimized for the job at > hand, but it's more expensive to own 2 lenses and time consuming to change > between lenses. To each his own. > JCO
Hi Jon, Thanks for posting the extracts, I read the article with interest. You did indicate that it was published Oct '72 so I was compelled to bring to your attention that it contained the line "Obviously, optimum focus is an area where lens designers certainly need to do some work. They are now starting to do it." Now considering that this article was prepared almost 30 years ago and that the Macro Lanthar lens (to which I've been referring) was designed post 2000 do you not think that there is the remote possibility that there have been advances in optical design and material technologies sufficient to relegate this particular article to no more than historical value? Again relating back to the Lanthar, initially I was concerned that it might perform poorly, it was new so there were no reviews available, could it be as good as my Pentax macro lenses? Thankfully after I experimented with it for a few months I decided than it would more than adequately replace both my SMCPA100f2.8 Macro and SMCP135f2.5 lenses, I was pleased. I don't like to compromise with my optics if it can be helped, this is one of several reasons that I dumped my P67 kit for the M7II kit however that meant that any macro work had to be relegated to my 35mm kit still I feel I've not compromised image quality. As you said "each to his own" Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
