Mon Feb 7 18:22:50 CST 2011 Paul Stenquist wrote: > On Feb 7, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > > > Also, albeit very subjectively (i.e. without quantitative and > > systematic > > tests), I found that 17-70/4 tends to produce somewhat sharper images > > of > > the dancers than 16-50/2.8 even at f/4 or f/5.6. > > The only way I can explain this is by different quality (or speed?) > > of focusing. > > I've been puzzled by that myself, and that why I chose to keep 17-70/4 > > last year. > > Sound like critical focus isn't properly adjusted for the 16-50. Have > you tested and adjusted the focus point? >
No, I didn't, and I realize that. But I just didn't have time and energy to deal with that. (I didn't do any focus adjustments on any lenses mentioned here.) The first sample of 16-50/2.8 was showing worse results, so I just sent it back to the store. The second is much better if not good, as I don't seem to have obvious problems with photos of static objects (e.g. portraits of people sitting/staying, etc.). ... maybe not.. as photos taken with 50-135/2.8 in the same situation with the same subject appear noticeably sharper. Igor -- 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.
