I Was Wrong

Interesting question—what should I do if I'm just all wrong about something?

Usually when I make a mistake, I can add a CORRECTION or an UPDATE, or re-edit the post on the fly, or Feature a comment that explains an opposing view. I don't actually mind being wrong—I'd rather get to the bottom of something than post incorrect information.

I can usually depend on commenters to set me straight, and it's looking like a difference in coatings isn't the main difference between the Classic 50mm ƒ/1.4 and the renewed small 50mm ƒ/1.4 (we're talking about the two smaller 50mm ƒ/1.4's in Pentax's lineup here). I was making an assumption, and my assumption was a wrong guess. In the Classic, Pentax just added a reflective element inside the lens or removed one of the design measures that prevents internal reflections. Which kind of negates my whole conclusion, and makes a lot of my comments beside the point. (And begs the question, why would they do that? The Classic lens then becomes just a gimmick, something to play with. Isn't that rather un-Pentax-like?)

I added an explanatory note as an update, but...well, even as I write this, the right thing to do is becoming clear: I have to take the whole article down. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Gotta take my lumps.

Yeah, I do. I'll leave it up till noon as I look into this some more, and then remove it. I'll post a revised version of the post as soon as I can get it done. It's going to take some time, though.

Mike

Comments

[Rob de Loe]

Wrong happens Mike. No harm, no foul. The only thing worse is leaving it up when you know it's wrong.

[Richard]

There's no problem with admitting you're wrong when you receive new information and change your mind. "Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know," by Adam Grant makes the point that whatever you think you know, don't be afraid to rethink it. Evidence has shown that creative geniuses are not attached to one identity, but constantly willing to rethink their stances. That notion is embodied in the scientific method where we test our knowledge to advance it. Grant says that if you find you're wrong about something you should rejoice because you're now closer to being correct.

Which brings us to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Research shows that those who are the least knowledgeable in a subject tend to be the ones who overestimate their own knowledge and abilities, while those that are full of doubt know enough about the topic to better gauge the extent of their ignorance.

[Andrew B]

I wish I could just delete all the stuff I was wrong about! I think your solution here is a good one, even if it must be a bit painful.

[Nigli]

Good on you Mike. Honesty is the heart of good communication.

[Rod S.]

Ricoh Imaging states: "Through intentional fine-tuning of the lens design", the smc Pentax 50mm f/1.4 lens "has been designed to produce a unique visual effect commonly known as rainbow flare when an image is captured at open aperture* and against strong backlight."

https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/k/standard/smcpentax-fa50-classic/

What, exactly, was the intentional fine-tuning of the lens design?

One might immediately suspect the designers made a slight change in the spacing of one of the seven elements. However, that can't be, because the MTF graphs of this smc Classic version are identical to those of the non-Classic HD Pentax 50mm f/1.4 version.

My best guess at present is that perhaps the intentional 'rainbow flare' of the new smc 50mm Classic lens is the result of deliberately not painting the edges of one or more of the lens elements.

[William Giokas]

That’s why the best lenses from Leica, Canon, Nikon and Sony are what they are. No gimmicks , just top quality glass. You get what you pay for.
Bill

[Sam Osborne]

On a related topic -- I read a quote yesterday that I found very interesting. "Most people hate to change their minds. But, I like to because I know I learned something."