Hi Godfrey
> Sorry John, but what these popphoto tests show me are subjective
> grades. Where are the MTF curves? The MTF is not expressible as a
> single number with any intelligibility. This is one of the reasons I
> gave up reading the magazines on a regular basis. Too little useful
> infor
Sorry John, but what these popphoto tests show me are subjective
grades. Where are the MTF curves? The MTF is not expressible as a
single number with any intelligibility. This is one of the reasons I
gave up reading the magazines on a regular basis. Too little useful
information, too much adver
> What are those sources? What are the testing methodologies? Where
> are the charts and specifications of the tests? ...
Compiled from photographic publications such as Popular Photography etc. I
would imagine they probably included Photodo MTF tests on earlier equipment.
Cross-referenced the
> I find these numbers mostly meaningless. The 24-90 is rated
> "average", the 28-105 rated "good" ... sheesh, as if you can reduce
> a lens' performance to one number and some meaningless one-word description.
I'd have to agree that there's much more to lens performance than an MTF
score and I
> I find these numbers mostly meaningless. The 24-90 is rated
> "average", the 28-105 rated "good" ... sheesh, as if you can reduce
> a lens' performance to one number and some meaningless one-word description.
I'd have to agree that there's much more to lens performance than an MTF
score and I
On Mar 8, 2005, at 4:01 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
I find these numbers mostly meaningless. The 24-90 is rated
"average", the 28-105 rated "good" ... sheesh, as if you can reduce
a lens' performance to one number and some meaningless one-word
description.
I'd have to agree that there's much more
On Mar 8, 2005, at 7:43 AM, John Whittingham wrote:
I thought you liked the latest 28-105, am I wrong? I have read good
comments here in the past.
I was seriously considering the faster aperture 28-105 f/3.2-4.5? for
some
time with non rotating front element, until I saw the MTF tests
amongst ot
From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML"
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:06 PM
Subject: SMCP-FA versus Takumar-F? Surprise!
Got a couple of lenses delivered the other day.
An SMC Pentax-FA 28-90/3.5-5.6 I got for $20.00 because
I always wanted to try one
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:03:50 +, John Whittingham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 28-** lenses seem to have gradually declined in quality since the
28-105
FA power zoom and it shows in MTF scores, build quality and other
areas.
The old power zoom had good contrast and sharpnes, reasonable buil
ect: Re: SMCP-FA versus Takumar-F? Surprise!
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
>
> > Ho Kostas
> >
> > I was seriously considering the faster aperture 28-105 f/3.2-4.5? for some
> > time with non rotating front element, until I saw the MTF tests amongst
othe
I like the newest FA 28-105. It performs quite well on the *istD. The build
isn't terrific, but I take good care of it, and it does the job.
Paul
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
>
> > > What would you recommend from the current catalog for a "normal"
> > > zoom? Of course, the 28-
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
> Ho Kostas
>
> I was seriously considering the faster aperture 28-105 f/3.2-4.5? for some
> time with non rotating front element, until I saw the MTF tests amongst other
> things and figured I'd live with the old power zoom and buy a constant
> aperture
Ho Kostas
> I thought you liked the latest 28-105, am I wrong? I have read good
> comments here in the past.
I was seriously considering the faster aperture 28-105 f/3.2-4.5? for some
time with non rotating front element, until I saw the MTF tests amongst other
things and figured I'd live with
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
> > What would you recommend from the current catalog for a "normal"
> > zoom? Of course, the 28-70/2.8 looks nice, but my wallet says
> > otherwise. Any thoughts on the 28-105/4-5.6 IF or the 24-90/3.5-4.5 AL?
>
> If the 28-70/2.8 is out of the equation
> What would you recommend from the current catalog for a "normal"
> zoom? Of course, the 28-70/2.8 looks nice, but my wallet says
> otherwise. Any thoughts on the 28-105/4-5.6 IF or the 24-90/3.5-4.5 AL?
If the 28-70/2.8 is out of the equation I think the 24-90 is probably the
best of current
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:03:50 +, John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 28-** lenses seem to have gradually declined in quality since the 28-105
> FA power zoom and it shows in MTF scores, build quality and other areas.
>
> The old power zoom had good contrast and sharpnes, reasonable
> The FA is one of the worst lenses I've ever mounted on a camera.
> >From 28-50 it's bad, from 50-90 it just gets worse.
> Contrast, sharpness, flare, focusing, build quality, all off the
> charts.the bottom that is.
> I had to give it two or three chances to focus on the right
> thing half t
As far as I know, the Takumar K-mount lenses aren't necessarily optical dogs,
they're just not multicoated. Just don't shoot at the sun.
Paul
> Got a couple of lenses delivered the other day.
>
> An SMC Pentax-FA 28-90/3.5-5.6 I got for $20.00 because
> I always wanted to try one.
> and
> A Tak
> From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:24 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: SMCP-FA versus Takumar-F? Surprise!
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:06:50 -0600, Don Sanderson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The F
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:06:50 -0600, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FA is one of the worst lenses I've ever mounted on a camera.
Agreed. I've got one of these, and it sucks (for lack of a better, or
worse, word.)
> From 28-50 it's bad, from 50-90 it just gets worse.
> Contrast, shar
Got a couple of lenses delivered the other day.
An SMC Pentax-FA 28-90/3.5-5.6 I got for $20.00 because
I always wanted to try one.
and
A Takumar-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 that came with a broken SF-1
that I bought for $25.00 to steal the viewfinder off of.
An nice new SMCP-FA versus a old cheapo Takumar-F
21 matches
Mail list logo
