Damn, I think I've broken the internet! I'll send again and see if this one gets through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to Babel Fish Translation the text of that page deals only with the comparative shape of internal reflections between the AL and spherical 15s. I am surprised that the obvious physical differences between the lenses' rear retaining rings went uncommented. As a matter of fact I wrote as much when last this topic was discussed. Heres a copy of that post: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:44 AM Subject: Re: A 15mm (ASP and non-ASP) > So....... has anyone noticed that the spherical and the asph lenses > illustrated have different rear retaining rings? The central part of the > spherical lens's retaining ring has 5 concentric steps, 4 narrow steps with > a wider step centremost. OTOH the asph lens's retaining ring has only 3 > broader steps in the same central section. The outer section which may also > be a retaing ring, or else part of the lens tube, seems the same on both > versions of the lens. > > Is this a useful indication, or did the change occur at another identifiable > time no-concurrent with the spherical to aspherical transition? > > regards, > Anthony Farr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On that occasion nobody deigned to comment. Oh well ;-) regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (Japanese only) > http://www.ucatv.ne.jp/~tweety/Report/Comparison15mm/Comparison15mm.htm > > According to these pictures, the back of the AL lens looks different from > non-AL. Mine is "SMC PENTAX 1:3.5 15mm" serial #736xxxx, which is non-AL, > and looks the same as #1. Maybe this is a good way to tell if yours is AL or > not. As to the testing pictures, non-AL seems to be a little better. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >
