>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:29:32 +0100
>From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Hi all,
>
>I believe I've finished adding more and more pictures to my *ist D test,
>including some (I believe) interesting comparison among lenses. Those shots
>partially contradict some of my previous thoughts, where I was rather
>convinced that you could find little difference among different lenses and
>the bottleneck of image quality is the camera.
>
>Trying more and more lenses, I could find some performing much better than
>other ones. It is also interesting to notice that among the best ones, you
>can find som old glories (both screw mount and M-series), thus strengthening
>further my idea that the crippled mount of the *ist D is a goof. Here are
>the links to the updated pages:
>
>http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p1e.htm
>
>http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p2e.htm
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dario Bonazza
http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm
''In my opinion, the following pictures are very interesting, showing how
modern lenses aren't necessarily better than older ones for digital
photography. The same goes with expensive lenses compared to cheap ones. I
believe the best lenses among those shown here are probably the older SMC
Takumar 85/1.8, SMC Pentax-M 100/2.8 and the pre-set Takumar 200/3.5!''
Hi, Dario,
Modern lenses should be better than older ones, especially because computer
design wasn't available. If they're not, it's either because of the
material used or the process. What's your view on this?
Or is it because lenses in the old days were individually inspected and
tested?
As I've mentioned before, I haven't any experience with SMC Taks, but
number my Super-Taks amongst the best lenses I've used.
So I'm agreeing with you.
Regards
