Frantisek wrote: PFS>> We compare our photos to those in National Geographic. FV> Which doesn't tell you ANYTHING about sharpness or lens qualities :)
and Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied: As unexpected as it may seem, it was a touch of humour from Paul's part. ;o) Actutally, Franticek correctly inferred that by not including a smiley :) I was being serious. I guess I'm remembering the National Geographic of old, because the sharpness of its photos "blew me away" (impressed me greatly). I would also strip the smiley off the end of the remark, by another PDMLer, that he knows whether a lens is sharp enough by reading it on the Internet. What is so absurd about that? If several PDMLers have used the same two lenses and draw the same conclusions--"the one wasn't all that sharp, the other is"--doesn't that tell you something? If it doesn't we're all wasting a lot of time reading everyone's remarks. If I told you where there was an 85/1.4 PKA* for sale for $250 in EX+ condition but could never resell it, wouldn't you buy it? Most of use would...based chiefly on what we've read on this list. (I added "but could never resell it" strictly to discourage the reply, "I'd buy it for $250 and resell it for $1000.") Heck, I'd hock my wedding ring to buy it. --Wait, Honey, I was only kidding! Ouch! Hey, that hurts!... Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
