I wanted to take that back the moment I clicked send! You ARE NOT magnifying more, you're simply wasting part of the potential frame size. However, since the lens was designed with a specific frame size in mind, I would think performance would be affected. DOF should be deeper and oddly enough corner sharpness might be BETTER. Since lenses are usually less sharp at the corners of the frame, and you are not using the corners of the frame!
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER > section of > the image circle, > Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the > image circle is capable of, > you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the > imperfections > in the lens with it. > <Whew!> I think I understood what I just said! > > Don > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:05 PM > > To: pdml > > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > > Dying) > > > > > > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > > center portion of the lens circle." > > > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x > magnification. > > > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > > this. > > > > Joe > > >
