Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:29:32 +0100
From: Dario Bonazza 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax *ist D vs. Fujifilm S2 Pro: final update
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi all,
I believe I've finished adding more and more pictures to my *ist D test,
including some (I believe) interesting comparison among lenses. Those shots
partially contradict some of my previous thoughts, where I was rather
convinced that you could find little difference among different lenses and
the bottleneck of image quality is the camera.
Trying more and more lenses, I could find some performing much better than
other ones. It is also interesting to notice that among the best ones, you
can find som old glories (both screw mount and M-series), thus strengthening
further my idea that the crippled mount of the *ist D is a goof. Here are
the links to the updated pages:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p1e.htm
http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p2e.htm
Cheers,
Dario Bonazza
http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm
''In my opinion, the following pictures are very interesting, showing how
modern lenses aren't necessarily better than older ones for digital
photography. The same goes with expensive lenses compared to cheap ones. I
believe the best lenses among those shown here are probably the older SMC
Takumar 85/1.8, SMC Pentax-M 100/2.8 and the pre-set Takumar 200/3.5!''
Hi, Dario,
Modern lenses should be better than older ones, especially because computer
design wasn't available. If they're not, it's either because of the
material used or the process. What's your view on this?
Or is it because lenses in the old days were individually inspected and
tested?
As I've mentioned before, I haven't any experience with SMC Taks, but
number my Super-Taks amongst the best lenses I've used.
So I'm agreeing with you.
Regards
