Aha, thats a better example. Thanks. rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here is another shot @ 17mm: > > <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5211.jpg> > > Dave > > On 1/6/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road. >> >>I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my >>archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So >>I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough >>almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Dave >> >>At 03:40 AM 6/01/2007, Rick Womer wrote: >> >>>Well, I disagree with Dave. The lens is still quite >>>"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in >>>the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you >>>can see it easily. >>> >>>It's a great lens. I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my >>>(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday, >>>and got it. Much fun. >>> >>>Rick >>> >>> >>>--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>10mm >>> >>><http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5146_1.jpg> >>> >>>>17mm >>> >>><http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5149.jpg> > > -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
