Rob,
A longer barrel--such as that used on the SMC 28/2, which was designed with
Zeiss--can bend the rays more "gently." Isn't extra barrel distortion one
of the compromises usually introduced by a shorter lens (unless, perhaps,
an aspherical element is used)? Isn't that why "no compromise" lenses are
typically longer, and use more elements? Or do I need to brush up on my
limited understanding of Cartesian optics?
PS: Of course, every lens design is a compromise. By no-compromise, I mean
to suggest "the best a lens maker has to offer."
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: Re: 28/2-class lens specs: Seven Third-Party Lenses vs. Three
Pentax 28/2s (was: Re: fast kiron on ebay)
On 10 Mar 2001, at 19:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> To my eye, 28mm is the widest
> practical focal length for "people-shooting," which is what I do. True,
it
> makes people at the edges of the frame look fat. But this problem is
> minimized by selecting a well-corrected prime.
Hi Paul,
Please explain, to my mind there should be a similar degree of perspective
distortion present (ie elongation of close objects at the edge of the
frame) in
any well corrected optic. The only way that I can imagine that there would
be
differences is if the lens that looks more normal has a semi-spherical
plane
of focus?
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Fax +61-2-9554-9259
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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 .
