my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in sharpness on the *istD. Velvia scans show more difference. none of my lesser expensive Pentax lenses are now being used. i don't have many short/medium primes because they don't offer the flexibility i need. i choose my position for landscapes based on the spatial relationships of the objects in my scene and the FOV gets determined later. most of the reason i use short/medium primes is when i need the larger aperture, and that is almost never since i am on a tripod virtually 100% of the time. i'm tending toward longer lenses now for macro work and lately that has been my 400/5.6 with a high quality closeup lens. it's not as sharp as i like, but it gives me the working distance i need. the 24/2 has too much chromatic abberation and is too long for my landscape work. most of my prime work is done with my two 400mm lenses, and the 400/5.6 just isn't in the same league as the 400/2.8, especially with an extender on each, which is most of the time.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > What makes you say this Herb? > > All my primes but for the FA24/2 seem up to the task.
