DA70 and 24x36 coverage

[P. J. Alling]

No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may cover a 
larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts nothing if 
they cover a larger format.

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> If the comments below are true, it's bad. The lens designation
> should convey if a lens wont cover 24x36mm IMHO. A APS-C only
> lens is not the same thing as a 24x36 lens and there should be
> an easy way to know by the lens designation IMHO.
> jco
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:37 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
>   
>> I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full frame
>>     
>
>   
>> and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax 
>> probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA.
>>     
>
> The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring control. DA lenses do not.
>
> The DA70 has no aperture ring control, it was design for use with the  
> digital SLR bodies. Whether it actually covers 24x36 mm format isn't  
> really relevant to the mount designation.
>
> Godfrey
>
> ---
> Not really relevant but interesting:
>
> In the course of researching my latest lens acquisition, I saw an  
> article about someone who took an M42 mount Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar  
> 17mm lens and cobbled up a mount to fit it on a 6x6 rollfilm folder  
> with behind-lens leaf shutter. His goal was to make circular fish eye  
> images inexpensively ... it produced an image circle ~ 45mm in  
> diameter on the 6x6 format film, which suited his needs perfectly.
> ---
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.