ScottGee1 wrote:
> Good thing the chaps at RFF don't know that . . .
>
1. Chaps? That's Roland, the Iron Rider, and (ex?) occasional poster
here and a few folks responding to downsized images.
2. What are OM SLR images dong on a rangefinder forum?
3. This is just the issue I posted about a few minutes ago between
practical results at ordinary display sizes and careful pixel peeping at
the limits of resolution.
4. The consensus of many users here over the years is that the 180/2.8
has more CA than is desirable for some uses and more than the 200/4,
200/5 and the Tamron 180/2.5. CH posted a clear example, but I've lost
the link to it.
Moose
> ScottGee1
>
> On 1/8/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> SNIP!
>
>> The CA issue with the 180/2.8 has been documented since long before
>> digital sensors.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|