Now boys! :) I'm sure that's just the CH3CH2OH this late at night.
I think as stated before, the tests need to be very scientifically controlled to be conclusive. I would love to do that myself with every lens I have, yet taking pictures of resolution charts isn't my cup of tea. And then it doesn't mean a lens isn't great at some apertures. Indeed many shots the list has liked were taken with the much maligned 28-200.
Tom C.
From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: The DA retested and loved again! Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:17:48 -0500
Godfrey, I wasn't worried about the DA in general. I was confused as to why *MY* DA didn't seem to be doing as well as others did. As a matter of fact I'm still at a loss to explain why it does well on buildings and not on shingled rooftops. Can YOU explain that? I can't.
And if you feel discussing Pentax products on the "Pentax DISCUSS Mailing List" is stupid then perhaps you joined the wrong list.
Don
> -----Original Message----- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 9:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: The DA retested and loved again! > > > > On Apr 5, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > On 5 Apr 2005 at 8:00, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > >> I've been very happy with the quality of the DA16-45/4 and don't > >> understand all this flap about it. It's a very good lens. > > > > If by "flap" you mean discussion, yes that's what it is. It's not > > subversive > > effort to denigrate and undermine other listers purchases, just a > > discussion > > and comparison. Sit back, relax and enjoy, you might even learn > > something, LOL > > > > Cheers big ears, > > Sure, big nose. > > I learn by using my own lens, thank you. There's been nothing in this > thread to learn from. 40-odd messages worrying about a lens that is > well known to be a good performer, if not as good as the finest prime, > is just stupid. > > Godfrey >
