Seems to me that the optical formulas are a bit different (although it could just be inaccuracies in their drawings) but I see the right most element as being a tad different.
I'm I the only one? it could well explain a couple things ... 2006/1/7, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Rob Studdert wrote: > > >On 24 Dec 2005 at 8:18, Derby Chang wrote: > > > > > > > >>But looking through the viewfinder mounted on a PZ1, there does look > >>like quite a lot of vignetting. I'll shoot a couple of frames at > >>different apertures and focus lengths, and report back. > >> > >> > > > >Not that I have experience with that lens but I wouldn't trust the finder. If > >you have an unloaded film body why not peer through the lens from the film > >side > >(camera back open), any mechanical vignetting will be pretty apparent. How > >come > >Santa came early? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > As they say, Santa helps those who help themselves :) > > Got back my roll of slide tests using the DA40 on a PZ-1. It was not a > very rigorous test, as I don't expect to be using the DA on a film body > much (nor using 35mm much at all for that matter). I probably should > have done some centre-corner resolution tests, but I wanted to get out > and play with my other goodies (the Horizon 202 is a HUGE amount of fun). > > Results here... > http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/40mm/DA40mm.html > > D > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc > > -- ---------------------- Thibouille ---------------------- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
