I personally don't care if you believe me. I don't just make this stuff up. But if you expect me to explain optical design theories in a few sentences you arent being realistic. If you want a hint the reason the symmetricals are so much better for 1:1 is many of the optical errors completely cancel out at 1:1 unlike an unsymmetrical design. Some of the very finest Apo process lenses for 1:1 are only four to six element symmetricals. Even the 4 element ones are legendary and go back many years.
As for the *istD being unable to tell the difference between very good and really great lenses, that just shows the sensor isnt very good it doesn't prove the lenses are the same or "just as good" for someone who wants to get the most out of 35mm format by using extremely fine grain films. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm On 10 Aug 2004 at 21:10, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I just told you in last post, late model 6 element german enlarging > lenses on a bellows. There is nothing "Stupid" about stating the > facts. If you want to get the "best" out of 35mm or current digital > you still need the best lenses. We werent talking "good enough" we > were talking what is better and best! For your information I've shot a high contrast test chart with the A50/2.8 + *ist D and from f2.8 to f16 the images are indistinguishable, at f22 there is a hint of loss of sharpness. These are the facts. So have much more resolution is required? > If you want to do 1:1, the best lenses are the ones > designed for 1:1, not the pseudo zooms. I'm sorry > if I am bursting your bubble but so be it. You're are not bursting my bubble, maybe if you could substantiate your claims with some examples your rhetoric would be more believable? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
