Cyril wrote:
> Apart from your belivable opinion, I'm curious about where you got your
> absolutely not contestable knowledge of the FA* 85/1.4 and the A* 85/1.4 ?
I have no not contestable knowledge of the A* 85/1.4 becuase I've never used it. I
have seen test of this lens that put it on top of the heap. I've owned both the FA*
85/1.4, A* 135/1.8 and 77 Limited. All reports I've seen put the A* 85/1.4 slightly
ahead of the A* 135/1.8. These lenses are all significantly better than the FA*
85/1.4. They also all sport fixed rear elements something that ensure uniform image
quality regardless of focusing distances. The FA* lens does not something that might
explain its low performaces except at close quarters. The FA* is obviously designed as
a portrait lens something these tests don't show you. Another point that shows why
such lens test should be discarded.
> > That they are reliable because they are french
> > isn't a valid argument.
>
> (You really have something against French, haven't you ?)
Not at all but what reaction do you expect on that chauvinistic CDI reply? Also, the
CDI proponenst ask to accept their tests and thereby discard others; the reason for
this blind believes aren't stated. Now how do you explain that the 43 Limited is
Amateur Photographer Magazine reference lens? Or that the A* 300/3.8 MTF data is close
to the theorethical limit according to test peformed by Hasseblad? Or that the A* star
lenses rated "3" by CDI is world class by any other test and user comments? How does
this things compare to CDI tests and how do you explain it? These question needs to be
adressed. Just claiming that CDI is reliable without any further data leads nowhere.
Pål
-
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 .
