I doubt that. My best film lenses -- the FA 50/1.4, the FA 35/2, the K
135,2.5, and the K 85/1.8 to name a few -- also yield the best results
when shooting digital. Bad glass is just bad glass.
Paul
On Sep 24, 2005, at 2:04 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
That might be a factor, the lenses are _too_ good.
graywolf wrote:
Just a thought backed up by nothing. Since purple fringing is a
digital artifact cause by high-contrast edges in the image, is it is
not posible that less highly refined lenses would seem to work
better? Some of the Pentax lenses reputed not to work so well with
digital are amoung the sharpest and highest contrast ones they ever
made.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Adam Maas wrote:
Ironically, my worst film performer (Formula 5 28mm f2.8) is quite
acceptable on Digital. And it's a cheap off brand K lens I bought
for $10CDN.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
Well Pentax supports them, in all exposure modes. They certainly
don't treat them as if they were obsolete. Don't you see a flaw in
just about every bodies logic here? On both sides of this debate?
I know I do. Especially since I have a number of K/M mount lenses
which give as good as or better performance on the APS digital
format than they do on film.
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
There are also newer lenses, post K/M that exhibit CA when used
on digital, are these also obsolete?
I have one of those as well.
If it's not correctable, then for digital, yes, it isn't usable,
and by definition, obsolete, even if nothing has replaced it.
YMMV
William Robb
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
