Pancho. It's somewhat of a relief to hear you say that about the 85 and the 50. I took the A50/1.4, the M50/1.4 and the FA50/1.7 out for a bit today with the ist-D. The A never seems to want to focus on the same thing I do. The M has the same problem but not nearly as bad. The FA kicked both their butts, BAD! Auto OR Manual Focus, from 1.7 thru 4.0. Image quality as good or better. Focus accuracy MUCH better. (Yes I CAN focus manually.) Bokeh not quite nice but close enough for me.
The M's will go on the film cameras. (Never had a problem there.) The A is up for sale. (Anyone?) The FA is "Da Man"! It stays with the D. Don (Not quite as blind as I thought.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Pancho Hasselbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please > > > Godfrey, > > that's interesting. I usually have a terrible fight against my A 1.4/85, > which never focuses where it seems to according to the focussing screen, > on my LX as well as on the KX or the MZ-S. > > It's focus confirmation on the latter that gave me hope again. This > beast must focused closer than it seems, focus confirmation is right and > screen is wrong. > > I recently made some shots that prove this, done at f/2, so it's a > question of "focus or not to focus". Results will be posted in the > future as part of a little gallery with the title "a new duck in town" ;-) > > I also used focus confirmation to test a Meyer Goerlitz Trioplan 2.0/100 > against my K 2.8/105 - fantastic! BTW, I went for the Meyer because of > Shel's search for the "glow" of older lenses. > > Shel, I've also purchased a Meyer Goerlitz Primoplan 3.5/35 and a CZJ > Tessar 2.8/50, which I havent't tested yet, pictures of lenses and their > results to follow. The Trioplan shows a kind of halo around bright areas > when used wide open, which disapears when stopped down. Winter time will > be scanner time, 'til then I will hopefully have tested these puppies on > B&W. > > Oh well, the thread was about focus confirmation - probably focus > confirmation works different on MZ-S and <camera you use>. Or on old(er) > film bodies compared to DSLRs aiming at slow consumer zooms? > > Don, > as you shoot digital I suggest you wate some frames to "focus > bracketing", which might reveal you something not only about your focus > confirmation but also about your focusing screen. > > I did have some struggle about this with the A 1.4/50, too. I made a > bunch of test shots to find this out Interestingly, the 43 Ltd behaves > the other way round. The K 1.4/50 seems less problematic, at least I got > some decent results on the KX. > > Just my 2c, > Pancho > > > Godfrey DiGiorgi schrieb: > > > I have not found the focus indication to be particularly accurate for > > an f/1.4 lens. It's accurate enough for an f/4 lens. I ignore it > > entirely when manually focusing a lens. (BTW, this is why when I'm > > shooting wide open with an f/1.4-f/2.8 AF lens, I often tend to switch > > to manual focus.) >
