That does it! I'm going to run over all my zooms with a truck as soon as I
get
home! Actually thank you for this insight.
Tom C
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
>>
>>But I'll tell ya...regardless of how unsharp your film is and how lo-res
>>your scanner is (or how unsharp your enlarger lenses are), if you really
>>look at the images you can see the difference. I almost wept when I got
>>back my first roll of film (printed in 4x6s) shot with my SMC-A* 200mm
>>f2.8. There is a clear and obvious difference, even on a 4x6 minilab
>>print. Scale that difference up to an 8x10 or 11x14, and it's a huge
>difference.
>>
>>>Without hesitation, people picked out the 28-200 as the worst every
>>time, at every aperture. They didn't even need to look closely.
>>
>>The SMC-A* just barely edged out the Tokina ATX (a lot of people thought
>>they were tied), but they were clearly the winners. The three cheapies
>>were a virtual tie for "middle place", too.
>>
>>There may be math that says the difference in sharpness is not very big.
>> I don't give a damn about the math, since I'm not hanging the math on
>>my wall. If I can see the difference with my eyes, no math in the world
>>will change my mind.
>>
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
