John already said that, I was pointing out the other significant difference.
I should have worded it different. Dave On 9/3/06, DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, you may also say that the D-FA lenses differ from DA lanses in > that they have aperture rings. If USM lenses do not give AF on older > cameras I do not think they will have aperture rings, even if they > cover FF. > > DagT > > Den 2. sep. 2006 kl. 20.45 skrev David Savage: > > > The significance of DFA lens is that they cover the 35mm frame. Not > > all the DA's do without vignetting. > > > > Dave. > > > > On 9/3/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I thought a significant difference between DA and DFA was the > >> presence > >> of an aperture ring. Sure, longer focal lengths are going to > >> have an > >> image circle larger than an APS-sized sensor. But that in itself > >> isn't > >> enough to make it a DFA lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
