Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Jerry, I have the lens but I also have a dial-up connection. Sorry. I have tested it on my *ist D against a brick wall at 20 mm., and at the same time tested the DA 16-45 f4 at the same focal length. The two are very close, but I would have to say that at 20 mm. the FA 20-35 is very slightly sharper. The DA 16-45, as you probably know, is highly regarded. When I first got the DA 16-45, what impressed me most about it was that its performance was so close to the FA 20-35. Joe
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
I can fish out a DS RAW file this evening ... I compared the 16-45 and 20-35 at 20, 24, 28 and 35mm focal length settings. They are very very close on sharpness, in my opinion, but the 20-35 has less rectilinear distortion and nicer out-of-focus rendering quality. The 16-45 seems to go a little smeary on corners and edges when wide open where the 20-35 defocuses nicely. Two 20-35 photos: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/21.htm http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/22.htm I have a lot more yet to process and present with this lens, but I've been concentrating on the work from my UK trip which was before I owned the 20-35 lens. Godfrey
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
I've owned both the 20-35 and the 16-45. Before going digital, the 20-35 was one of my favorite lenses. After going digital, I found that as a wide angle lens it wasn't all that wide anymore. That doesn't mean it's not a fantastic lens though. I used it a lot as a normal-ish lens, and got great results. Eventually I sold it to buy the 16-45. To me, the fact that the 16-45 offered approximately equal (fantastic) image quality along with a broader zoom range offset the fact that the 16-45 is bigger and heavier, and thus to me justified the purchase. Others complain about the 16-45's size, and prefer the compactness of the 20-35, even if its zoom range is a little more limited. Sometimes when I see their arguments I start missing my 20-35. But not enough to part with my 16-45 so as to buy a 20-35 again. ;) Godfrey had exactly the opposite experience... started with the 16-45 and switched to the 20-35 because of its approximately equal performance at a fraction of the size and weight, despite the narrower zoom range. What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. Dave Joseph Tainter wrote: Jerry, I have the lens but I also have a dial-up connection. Sorry. I have tested it on my *ist D against a brick wall at 20 mm., and at the same time tested the DA 16-45 f4 at the same focal length. The two are very close, but I would have to say that at 20 mm. the FA 20-35 is very slightly sharper. The DA 16-45, as you probably know, is highly regarded. When I first got the DA 16-45, what impressed me most about it was that its performance was so close to the FA 20-35. Joe
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, David Oswald wrote: What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. I have no mixed feelings about it. The 16-45 just didn't cut it for me ... I just about refused to carry it. The 20-35 is my most-used lens now. 20mm on the 16x24 format is generally as wide as I need (I'm at 24-28mm most of the time...), but when I want wider I stick the DA14 on the camera. Godfrey
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Sorry for putting words into your mouth. ...I just was trying to summarize, and really meant to lend credance to your point of view. I can't argue the size issue; the 20-35 is more pleasant to handle for that reason, and that's why I miss it. The 16-45 fits in my small camera bag along with a 50mm f/1.4, a 135mm f/2.8, or a 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and an AF330FTZ... all without hoods except the 135 which has an internal hood. So though it's a little heavier, I find it just about as convenient. My small bag is medium fanny-pack size. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, David Oswald wrote: What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. I have no mixed feelings about it. The 16-45 just didn't cut it for me ... I just about refused to carry it. The 20-35 is my most-used lens now. 20mm on the 16x24 format is generally as wide as I need (I'm at 24-28mm most of the time...), but when I want wider I stick the DA14 on the camera. Godfrey
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
No problem, David. I'm just a bug for small and light equipment, presuming the quality is there. ;-) Your medium-fanny-pack size bag must be a lot bigger than the Billingham L2 I normally use. DS with one lens mounted plus two others, and my usual selection of small bits (spare batteries, spare memory cards, notebook, cell phone, etc) is about the limit I'm willing to stuff it in there. If I carry the Tamrac SL-5 bag, I can fit three-four lenses plus a flash unit fairly easily. That's more than I normally want to carry, but it came in very handily when I was on the UK trip. Godfrey On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:35 AM, David Oswald wrote: Sorry for putting words into your mouth. ...I just was trying to summarize, and really meant to lend credance to your point of view. I can't argue the size issue; the 20-35 is more pleasant to handle for that reason, and that's why I miss it. The 16-45 fits in my small camera bag along with a 50mm f/1.4, a 135mm f/2.8, or a 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and an AF330FTZ... all without hoods except the 135 which has an internal hood. So though it's a little heavier, I find it just about as convenient. My small bag is medium fanny-pack size.
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, David Oswald wrote: What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps. I have no mixed feelings about it. I think the expression was wrong, but being a foreigner working in an English-speaking, multi-cultural environment, I tend to interpret what people say. And I got this to mean: what works for some does not for others and vice-versa, but these are both good lenses. Kostas
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Thanks for all your comments. Don't be in hurry with these RAWs - I'll appreciate them anytime : Currently I have 20-35, and (if I buy DS) - I will not be able to afford 16-45. And, I will not sell 20-35, because I am not quitting film (slides !!) - this lens is excellent on 24x36. On the other hand - I prefer shorter lenses (well, that's why I got 20-35 :) - so ~30mm (equiv.) may not be enough. Good for start, but probably I'll need something wider. DA 14mm is out of my reach, so probably I'll start looking for Tokina AT-X, or Tamron SP 17/3.5. By the way - has anybody experience with Tokina/Tamron and DS ? Regards Jerry
RE: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Hi Jarek I got a used Tamron SP 17mm lately and use it with film on the SFXn and P30 only. I like the lens so far a lot but can not tell you how it works on a digital body. Mine has uv, skylight and yellow filters integrated, I think there is a later version without filters. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Jarek Dabrowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4 Thanks for all your comments. Don't be in hurry with these RAWs - I'll appreciate them anytime : Currently I have 20-35, and (if I buy DS) - I will not be able to afford 16-45. And, I will not sell 20-35, because I am not quitting film (slides !!) - this lens is excellent on 24x36. On the other hand - I prefer shorter lenses (well, that's why I got 20-35 :) - so ~30mm (equiv.) may not be enough. Good for start, but probably I'll need something wider. DA 14mm is out of my reach, so probably I'll start looking for Tokina AT-X, or Tamron SP 17/3.5. By the way - has anybody experience with Tokina/Tamron and DS ? Regards Jerry
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Jarek Dabrowski wrote: Currently I have 20-35, and (if I buy DS) - I will not be able to afford 16-45. And, I will not sell 20-35, because I am not quitting film (slides !!) - this lens is excellent on 24x36. It's just as excellent on 16x24, don't worry about that. On the other hand - I prefer shorter lenses (well, that's why I got 20-35 :) - so ~30mm (equiv.) may not be enough. Good for start, but probably I'll need something wider. DA 14mm is out of my reach, so probably I'll start looking for Tokina AT-X, or Tamron SP 17/3.5. I have no experience with the Tokina or Tamron lenses. But if what you want is the field of view of an approximately 20mm focal length that you get with the 20-35 and 24x36 format, even a 16-17mm lens is going to feel constraining. The DA14 is a bargain considering its speed and quality coupled with the field of view ... in the Canon line, the EF 14mm 2.8L is nearly $1800 street price in the US. That said, you might consider the Zenitar-K 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye. This is a remarkably well made, good performing lens that sells in the $125 price bracket. No AF and it's not an A lens either so you can only use Manual exposure with the DS/D cameras, but it's well worth it. On the 16x24 format, it presents a very wide, curvilinear field of view that can be corrected back to a rectilinear rendering with PTLens with excellent results. The 16x24mm format helps hide some of the curvilinear distortion so it can even be used without rectilinear correction in certain circumstances. My needs generally run in the 24-28mm wide category, but when I want ultrawide the Zenitar and DA14 are what I need. Here's a Zenitar pic, taken from about 8-10 inches away: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/25p.htm Godfrey
Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Hello PDML, As I read here before - some of you have SMC-FA 20-35/4 lens and use it with *istD(S). Can you send me some of your pictures taken with this lens (in RAW format) - I'd like to check how it works on digital body... I saw several very good reviews, now I'd like to see the proof :) My e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks in advance Jerry
Re: Request for RAWs from FA 20-35/4
Jarek Dabrowski napisał(a): As I read here before - some of you have SMC-FA 20-35/4 lens and use it with *istD(S). Can you send me some of your pictures taken with this lens (in RAW format) - I'd like to check how it works on digital body... I saw several very good reviews, now I'd like to see the proof :) My e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail acepts attachments up to 10 MB, so if possible - split the file into two parts - or send dng files. thanks again. Jerry
