I have a question for the group, along the same lines as the current discussion. My personal preference for focusing is the split image viewfinder screen. If I had any question as to the accuracy of the distance noted thereby, up to some 50 feet, I could actually measure with a tape, and compare that with what the lens says. I haven't taken the time to do that.
My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet and beyond? In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified? keith whaley Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: > > Hello Arnold, > > You wrote: > > > just one question about your testing procedure: Do you do focus > > bracketing? I found careful focus bracketing to be quite important in my > > own tests. > > Most previous tests were done by Carlo Lastrucci, not by me (with the > exception of the 24-90mm, published in Spotmatic No. 30, October 2001, that > we made together). Then I commented Carlo's pictures on Spotmatic magazine. > No, we usually don't do focus bracketing, since most people in most pictures > don't. I'd appreciate your further comments on this. > > Carlo's tests were done focusing with MZ-5 autofocus, with the exception of > the latest comparison (35/2 FA vs. 31/1.8 Ltd, published in Spotmatic > No.34), where focusing was manually adjusted by looking at the split-image > in MX viewfinder. > > My test about the 24-90 was done with MZ-S, autofocusing on subject (either > infinity or mid-distance) always going farther away from a closer subject > (hence reaching focus from close distance). I was thinking of doing the same > this time. Suggestions are also accepted. > > Bye, > > Dario Bonazza > -------------------------------- > http://www.dariobonazza.com
