Op Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:35:15 +0200 schreef Luka Knezevic-Strika
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> try comparing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and fa 50 1.4 field of view. you'll be
> surprised
Photodo.com has (or used to have) tested focal lengths: Pentax AF 50's
were actally 52mm. I would guess the 16-50 would st
It looks to me like you may have bumped the tripod while changing
lenses. Specifically, the 50-135 is aimed slightly higher than the
16-50. I can see slight differences that I couldn't attribute to a
change in lens angle, but it is hard to tell...
(Generally, the 50mm on the 50-135mm looks l
I'd only be surprised if they were actually the same.
Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
> try comparing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and fa 50 1.4 field of view. you'll be
> surprised
>
>
--
Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil...
-- Dr. Jerry Pournelle
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
On Apr 18, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
> try comparing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and fa 50 1.4 field of view. you'll be
> surprised
>
What difference are you pointing out? I see a variation in what the
50mm marked setting produces in the case of the 16-50 vs the 50-135:
16-50 @ 50m
try comparing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and fa 50 1.4 field of view. you'll be surprised
--
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.
Just got the 16-50 yesterday. So far it looks like it works (despite
all of the horror stories I've been reading). Focus field seems flat,
and it focuses to infinity. Yay!
I was REALLY surprised by how LONG this thing is with the hood on.
Barely fits into my Tamrac Velocity 3 bag. :-(
6 matches
Mail list logo
