;-) I haven't used this example of the 16-50 to really say one way or another whether it might be subtley defective ... I simply prefer to use prime lenses most of the time anyway, in this focal length range. It's one of the lenses I have for 'evaluation', so I suppose I really should examine it a bit more critically.
The shooting I've done with it, however, has all looked pretty good. I just went through 300 some exposures made with it at a wide variety of focal length, distance and scene types: I see no signs of any focusing or sharpness issues, other than those caused by my own sloppiness in using it. Godfrey On Apr 8, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I would look closely. I never test lenses. But I have taken advantage > of the focal point adjustment on the K20D. It's worthwhile. And when > this lens showed aberrant behavior, I tested it further. I could have > settled for what was essentially a defective lens. And if the chips > fell right I may never have noticed it in real world shooting. You > can always blame it on camera shake or simply missing the mark on the > focal point. But there are times when it's best to know that one's > equipment works correctly. Or one can choose blissful ignorance. > Paul > On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:26 PM, David Savage wrote: >> I'm forced to agree. >> >> This is what comes from using lenses on a test bed instead of in the >> real world. >> >> I only ever resort to this kinda' testing if my real world shots show >> optical deficiencies. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave >> >> >> At 08:50 AM 9/04/2008, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective >>> DA*16-50 in captivity. Perhaps I shouldn't look too closely at >>> it! ;-) >>> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
