Interesting!
After I read what you had written, I compared the DOF scales on my
50mm2.8 macro and 50mm1.4. (It seemed to me that the macro would
exhibit less DOF but both, by force, would always have the same
viewpoint.)
But even though the DOF scale is significantly different on each le
>Interesting. The marks in my lens are radial, ie they go around the lens
in a circular pattern and cover basically the whole area of the element. Is
this typical of your experience?
Yes. What's worse? The FA*200/2.8 I just returned had an ED element (2nd or
3rd, can't be certain by looking fr
Alan Chan wrote:
> I can tell you that the cleaning marks could be performed by the Pentax
> factory. No, I am no insane. Most of my Pentax lenses were bought brand
> new from Japan, HK, Canada or US. Some of them do show hand-cleaning marks
> inside.
Interesting. The marks in my lens are radial
Herb Chong wrote:
> what if it has been disassembled and not put back together right?
That thought had crossed my mind. It might be interesting to find out
what it'd cost to have it checked and fixed if necessary. But I'd have
to be 100% certain that the lens is supposed to be sharper than my
Chet wrote:
> It goes back to something I was wondering about earlier when I noticed
> that the SMC 300 is marked to focus to 300 feet before infinity; the M*
> and A* dropped to 150 feet before infinity; and the F* has dropped to 60
> (or 80?) feet before infinity.
That would be due to the amoun
>>> If you didn't mind extending your test, what happens at around 35
>>> meters, which would be within the focal range of the A*300 (with
>>> depth of field effect) but at infinity for the F*300?
>>
>> Chet, I'm glad you were asking Dave that question, because I
>> don't understand the question
Oops... I mean F*300/4.5, not FA*400/5.6 which I have never had.
regards,
Alan Chan
Unlikely. I stripped one of this lens few years ago and there was no chance
for error. As long as the elements were in correct order, it would be as
good as new.
__
what if it has been disassembled and not put back together right?
Unlikely. I stripped one of this lens few years ago and there was no chance
for error. As long as the elements were in correct order, it would be as
good as new.
regards,
Alan Chan
__
If you didn't mind extending your test, what happens at around 35
meters, which would be within the focal range of the A*300 (with
depth of field effect) but at infinity for the F*300?
Chet, I'm glad you were asking Dave that question, because I don't
understand the question - . (Sorry.)
Fre
Hi Dave,
If you didn't mind extending your test, what happens at around 35
meters, which would be within the focal range of the A*300 (with
depth of field effect) but at infinity for the F*300?
Thanks!
--Chet
I just finished looking over the slides from my 300mm lens test. The
test was pe
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>However if I hold it "just right" I
can see what may be cleaning marks on an internal element (I purchased
this lens secondhand). Maybe thats causing a bit of softness. Would
other owners of this lens care to comment?<
what if it has been di
Hi, Dave.
> The F*300mm f/4.5 is fantastic. A real gem, ultra sharp and high
> contrast even wide-open. In fact its wide-open performance is
> very impressive. It handles really well even when manually
> focussing. This bit of glass is a real keeper and I certainly
> don't regret buying it.
I am still a bit disappointed with the FA* 400mm f/5.6. Mine just
doesn't seem to be a very good performer at near-infinity, although it is
better than the manual focus Tokina lens it replaced. I will do some
more testing at closer distances. However if I hold it "just right" I
can see what may
Hi all,
I just finished looking over the slides from my 300mm lens test. The
test was performed by photographing a building across a sports field, a
distance of perhaps 100 metres. Tripod mounted LX with mirror locked up,
Kodak E100S film. I have tested the LX and I know the focus accuracy i
14 matches
Mail list logo
