Dear Sir ( is that gentlemanly enough) , You forgot to mention fstop used on the 105 lens and I don't even think there is such a thing as a K105/2.5 lens if I am not mistaken.
Secondly, have YOU ever used a constant aperture zoom of ANY range that wasn't easier to focus manually on the longer end than on the shorter end? I haven't and this pretty much squelches any argument to the contrary over this. Its just simple differences in the DOF. The more DOF you have, the harder it is to find the true focal point because the DOF is masking it to some extent and you don't pop in an out of focus as quickly as you do with a longer lens which has shallower DOF at the same fstop and distance. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS- A challange to the list? ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS- A challange to the list? > And not all opinions are created equal. One that > can be backed up by a solid factual arguement to > support it is worth a hell of a lot more than one > that can't. > I presume then that finding very little if any difference in focusing difficulty between an M40/2.8 at f/8 and a K105/2.5 would be creating the facts required to support an argument? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
