> I know it's not a soft lens, maybe it's even better than our old AF
> 300/4, but when I said soft I was trying to say that it is softer than it's
> non-is counterpart (I assume I did not made myself clear... :-)
do you have evidence to support that conclusion, other than PP ?
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0003d5
additional zero-power optical elements don't necessarily degrade
results. for instance many tele are designed to be used WITH the
drop-in filter.
Q.-Tuan Luong, Computer scientist at SRI, +1(650)859-5138
Mountain Gallery http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/gallery/index.html
