I really haven't experienced any difficulty with manual lenses that is native to the digital process. The fringing on out of focus areas in some of those backlit long lens shots occurs on film as well. It's a product of the A2X converter in combination with the A 400/5.6 lens. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the digital process. Here's an example where the same thing occured on film: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1223558
Although I've been using the DA 16-45 more and more, I use manual lenses for the most part with my *ist D. I shoot a lot of studio work for stock with the K 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2.5. I'm very pleased with the results, as is my stock house. The a 400/5.6 performs fine without the converter and in more normal lighting situations. Here's a shot that is somewhere between crosslit and backlit. It's shot with the A 400/5.6 on the *ist D without the converter. The red on the water is an algae bloom, not an aberration. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2266884 Paul > The time is getting closer for me to make a decision about getting a DSLR, > but more information is needed. > > There have been some comments on the list to the effect that some manual > focus Pentax lenses don't produce very good results when used with the > istD(s). A little more information is needed. Which lenses are giving > poor results? In what way are the results poor? When using a particular > lens, are the problems only in certain circumstances, or across the board. > I've seen some awful looking results with some longer lenses (Paul's bird > shots), but they seemed to be relegated to backlit scenes. So, any > comments on the quality of images with various manual lenses would be > appreciated. Reasonably sized pics (sections of larger images) might be > helpful as well. > > Thanks! > > Shel > >
