, 25 Nov 2006 18:49:52 -0500
Subject: Re: FL information SD ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Christian
It certainly is. However, with the matching 1.4x and 2x EX
converters it still shows up as 300mm. I'm not sure if that would
adversely effect SR
-- Original Message ---
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:27:14 -0800
Subject: Re: FL information AS ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
Hello John,
Certainly the A and earlier zooms have the problem
-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:49:52 -0500
Subject: Re: FL information SD ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Christian
It certainly is. However, with the matching 1.4x and 2x EX
converters it still shows up as 300mm. I'm not sure
600mm.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:59:33 -0500
Subject: Re: FL information SD ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
Using my A400/5.6 and A2X-S converter, I can simply dial
:52 -0500
Subject: Re: FL information SD ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Christian
It certainly is. However, with the matching 1.4x and 2x EX
converters it still shows up as 300mm. I'm not sure if that would
adversely effect SR (600mm vs
and the Sigma EX converters.
John
John Whittingham
-- Original Message ---
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:08:41 -0800
Subject: Re: AW: Reservations about DA 16-45
I don't use zooms very much, but I
Hi!
That never occurred to me until you mentioned it, that could have some
serious consequences. I'm not to bothered by the M A zooms, I only have
four M 24-35, M 35-70, A 35-105 and A 70-210. But if the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX
doesn't communicate the correct information it's going to be a
]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:51:26 +0200
Subject: Re: FL information AS ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
Hi!
That never occurred to me until you mentioned it, that could have some
serious consequences. I'm not to bothered by the M A zooms, I only
On Nov 25, 2006, at 3:21 AM, John Whittingham wrote:
I personally would not buy a pre-AF zoom lens again, however,
particularly for the K100D or K10D bodies, as without the focal
length information transmitted from lens to body, obtaining benefit
from the antishake technology is a bit more of
.
Regards,
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:59:32 -0800
Subject: Re: FL information AS ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
On Nov 25, 2006, at 3:21 AM, John Whittingham
John Whittingham wrote:
Thanks for that information, it's reassuring to know. I'm sure I read
somewhere that the Sigma 300/4 APO is recognised as FA 300/4.5
It certainly is. However, with the matching 1.4x and 2x EX converters
it still shows up as 300mm. I'm not sure if that would
---
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:28:12 -0500
Subject: Re: FL information SD ( was Reservations about DA 16-45)
John Whittingham wrote:
Thanks for that information, it's reassuring to know. I'm sure I read
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 05:59:32AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
As long as the correct focal length appears in the EXIF data,
everything should work all right. I have not specifically tested the
case with the Pentax Rear Converter-A 2x-S fitted behind a lens known
to transmit the
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Christian
It certainly is. However, with the matching 1.4x and 2x EX
converters it still shows up as 300mm. I'm not sure if that would
adversely effect SR (600mm vs 420mm vs 300mm). As a point of
example, the Canon 300/4 and 1.4x converter show as 420mm in
-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
JW Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:08:41 -0800
JW Subject: Re: AW: Reservations about DA 16-45
I don't use zooms very much, but I have had excellent results with
the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF, the F100-200/4.5-5.6, the A70-210/4
Macro, the A35-70/4, the F35-70/3.5-4.5 Macro
Many thanks to all on the list who replied with comments on the performance
of the DA 16-45 zoom and for the wonderful samples provided. I think I can
safely say that I'll be looking for the DA 16-45 as the first affordable
ultra-wide lens for the K10D when I finally get my hands on a K10D,
John,
You can hone your RAW conversion skills with any RAW file and Real
World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2 by Bruce Fraser. You don't need
a K10D file ... it will not be anything different. I strongly
recommend reading and working through the book as it will save you a
tremendous amount
I don't use zooms very much, but I have had excellent results with
the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF, the F100-200/4.5-5.6, the A70-210/4
Macro, the A35-70/4, the F35-70/3.5-4.5 Macro and the FA20-35/4 AL.
That last is my favorite zoom lens of all, and I use it a lot
(relatively speaking).
I
Thanks Godfrey, much appreciated. Sorry about the typo on the original.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:00:18 -0800
Subject: Re: Bib favor (was Reservations about DA 16
DA 16-45
Henk,
Nice shots and a long way from NL.
The Great Ocean Road is really a great place.
Regards, Bob S.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
;-)
greetings
Markus
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. November 2006 16:09
An: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Betreff: Re: AW: Reservations about DA 16-45
I don't use zooms very much, but I have had
I'll put in my 2 cents. On an extended vacation out of the country,
I found myself using this lens most of the time. It is very convenient
and delivers good results.
Wide open or in big, detailed landscapes, the 77mm or 31mm limiteds
outperformed it in terms of resolution, but it is so
Nice shot. SMC is truly amazing.
I expect the new DA 16-50/2.8 will be much nicer build quality. The DA
12-24 is certainly a much nicer piece of equipment than the 16-45. Yet,
I do really like the 16-45. It's an excellent lens for the money.
On Nov 23, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Alan Chan wrote:
After
John,
Here's a shot from Australia with the 16-45mm zoom.
I haven't seen much in the way of flare problems.
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/GreatOceanRoad/photo#4994646314410508306
Regards, Bob S.
On 11/23/06, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll put in my 2 cents. On an
Pretty pic. I like the dark foreground. No noise problems to my eye.
Paul
On Nov 23, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
John,
Here's a shot from Australia with the 16-45mm zoom.
I haven't seen much in the way of flare problems.
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/GreatOceanRoad/
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
John,
Here's a shot from Australia with the 16-45mm zoom.
I haven't seen much in the way of flare problems.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
] Auftrag von
Henk Terhell
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. November 2006 22:57
An: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Betreff: RE: Reservations about DA 16-45
I much like my DA 16-45 as an all-purpose lens and I rarely now take my
primes when travelling. Incidently, I also made a couple of pics last
month
On 11/23/06, Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
makes me wonder what Pentax M or A or third party zoom gives the best
results on a digital body?
I've gotten very good results from my A35-105/3.5. It's a fairly large
and heavy lens though, and it flares pretty badly if you get the sun
on the
/IMGP5649s2.html
Henk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Sullivan
Sent: 23 November, 2006 7:06 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
John,
Here's a shot from Australia with the 16-45mm zoom.
I
I've been looking at buying a lens for the K10D in the region of 14 or 16mm,
a good zoom preferably. Despite it's age I'm considering the DA 16-45 mainly
due to coverage and relatively low price. There seems to be some quite
conflicting opinions regarding CA, distortion etc.
Is there anything
While I liked the lens, and found it to be a nice walking around lens, I
wasn't quite satisfied with it for critical work and fine details. The
standard hood is, imo, inadequate, and the lens is prone to flare and
purple fringing in some situations. I actually used two samples, one
briefly and
I'm very fond of this lens. It's among my most used. Here's a pic I posted just
the other day. It's at f4.5 and 16mm. Plenty of flare potential here, but the
lens handled it well.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5222820size=lg
Paul
-- Original message
: Reservations about DA 16-45
I'm very fond of this lens. It's among my most used. Here's a pic I
posted just the other day. It's at f4.5 and 16mm. Plenty of flare
potential here, but the lens handled it well.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5222820size=lg
Paul
-- Original
taking the shot?
John
-- Original Message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:11:40 +
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
I'm very fond of this lens. It's among my most used. Here's a pic I
posted
2006 07:18:31 -0800
Subject: RE: Reservations about DA 16-45
While I liked the lens, and found it to be a nice walking around
lens, I wasn't quite satisfied with it for critical work and fine
details. The standard hood is, imo, inadequate, and the lens is
prone to flare and purple fringing
I'm also extremely satisfied with my 16-45. It was easily worth the cost and is
the best zoom I've ever owned.
-Adam
Jack Davis wrote:
Paul, glad to read your 16~45 remarks. I just ordered the lens and will
(happily) deal with the $100 Rebate process.
When I receive the lens, I plan to do
Paul, glad to read your 16~45 remarks. I just ordered the lens and will
(happily) deal with the $100 Rebate process.
When I receive the lens, I plan to do some comparing with my A-20mm
f/2.8. If I'm satisfied with the 16~45 performance, I'll likely eBay
the 20mm.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it's not, but I'm in the minority on this list. There are only two
others here that I know of who feel similarly.
The issue about the hood can be easily corrected, and that may help with
the flare issues I encountered. Paul's pic is not a particularly good
example (IMO) of a flare-producing
That reassuring, thanks!
Jack
--- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm also extremely satisfied with my 16-45. It was easily worth the
cost and is the best zoom I've ever owned.
-Adam
Jack Davis wrote:
Paul, glad to read your 16~45 remarks. I just ordered the lens and
will
Try this for flare control, just about a worst case scenario, with definite
flare, but still well controlled:
http://static.flickr.com/104/273662880_843634c70a_b.jpg
Note it's a bit big (Direct link for Flickr-haters)
-Adam
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
No, it's not, but I'm in the minority on this
I agree! Flare well controlled under extreme flare conditions. FTR,
were you using a filter?
Jack
--- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try this for flare control, just about a worst case scenario, with
definite flare, but still well controlled:
Or this
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/awful_flare2947.jpg
I've been photographing this boat under a wide variety of conditions for
more than 30 years, and the 16-45 is the only lens that produced flare.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Adam Maas
Try this for flare control, just
Here's a frame shot with the 16-45, showing flare:
http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=502
(you can see it down the center of the frame, especially on the horse)
No filter used. Although I'm not sure how clean the front element was.
I've gotten this kind of flare from my 16-45 a
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
Or this
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/awful_flare2947.jpg
I've been photographing this boat under a wide variety of conditions
for
more than 30 years, and the 16-45 is the only lens
As a DA 16-45 owner, I should jump in. Before I got the lens, I was
using a FA * 24/2.0 lens for family portraits. I wasn't overly happy
with it, even though I had great success with it on film. It hide
quite a bit of CA and just didn't seem as sharp on digital. After I
got the 16-45, I did
I'd be surprised if no flare. It's subtle, in any case, and I have
trouble picking it up except against the dark tree top center.
Jack
--- Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a frame shot with the 16-45, showing flare:
http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=502
(you can
No filter, I don't use UV filters and didn't have the polarizer on. The stock
hood was on the lens (It's not ideal, but it does work) and I was shooting
essentially directly into the sun, with it right at the edge of the frame.
-Adam
Jack Davis wrote:
I agree! Flare well controlled under
Those are a lot of qualifications, but I suppose there's at least some
truth to them ;-))
I, too, am waiting to see what the 16-50/2.8 is going to be like.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bruce Dayton
Do I think there are better optics out there in a prime...yes. But at
this time you
Hi Paul, I really can't fault with either of those. Very impressive.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:55:16 +
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
Very little correction. I shot
17mm f/3.5 ;-)
John
-- Original Message ---
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:00:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re
to be desired.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:34:34 -0800
Subject: RE: Reservations about DA 16-45
No, it's not, but I'm in the minority on this list. There are only two
others here
Handled that well considering, thanks.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:42:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
Try this for flare control, just about a worst case
When I receive the lens, I plan to do some comparing with my A-20mm
f/2.8. If I'm satisfied with the 16~45 performance, I'll likely eBay
the 20mm
-
Oh, your A 20 will outperform it. I did the comparative test against the
FA 20 F2.8.
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
As a DA 16-45 owner, I should jump in. Before I got the lens, I was
using a FA * 24/2.0 lens for family portraits. I wasn't overly happy
with it, even though I had great success with it on film. It hide
quite a bit of CA and just didn't seem as sharp on digital. After I
got the 16-45, I
I've used a few zooms on this scene over the years and none flared like
this, although, to be fair, none of the zooms were as wide, all had better
optimized hoods, and, of course, none were used in the exact same
circumstances. Regardless, this is not the kind of result that I'd expect
to see
I don't see that scene as being extreme Juan It seems to be a rather
typical backlit scene, and shooting such scenes is very common.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Juan Buhler
Here's a frame shot with the 16-45, showing flare:
http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=502
Having the sun right at the edge of the frame is a torture test for any lens
with a moderate to large number of elements. Move it further in or out and
there would be no issue.
-Adam
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't see that scene as being extreme Juan It seems to be a rather
typical
List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:55:16 +
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
Very little correction. I shot it raw and adjusted the highlight
and
shadow values in PhotoShop conversion. Then I believe I reduced the
highlights a bit more with the highlight/shadow
John Whittingham wrote:
As a DA 16-45 owner, I should jump in. Before I got the lens, I was
using a FA * 24/2.0 lens for family portraits. I wasn't overly happy
with it, even though I had great success with it on film. It hide
quite a bit of CA and just didn't seem as sharp on digital. After I
]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:29:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
John Whittingham wrote:
As a DA 16-45 owner, I should jump in. Before I got the lens, I was
using a FA * 24/2.0 lens for family portraits. I wasn't overly happy
with it, even
Shel
Just curious. What is the problem with the standard hood and what would you do
to correct it?
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The issue about the hood can be easily corrected, and
It's not deep enough, and doesn't provide effective coverage for longer focal
lengths.
I'd have preferred a hood like on the Canon 24-70L (which shares the 16-45's
extend as you get wider design). It wouldn't be small, but you'd get superb
protection at all focal lengths.
-Adam
Brian
On 23/11/06, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Shel, the extending barrel won't be an issue, my Tamron 28.75 has that
and it's one of the best zooms I've used (optically) although build leaves a
little to be desired.
I'll jump in here, the 16-45/4 is the only zoom I own, it's
On 23/11/06, Brian Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel
Just curious. What is the problem with the standard hood and what would you
do to correct it?
It's difficult to correct as the hood is fixed to the front of the
lens and doesn't telescope as the the lens is zoomed. It is a poor
On 23/11/06, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Adam, yes. The 14mm prime is out of my reach financially especially with
the purchase of the K10D firmly in my sights. There are numerous third party
lenses out there but non seem to meet all my requirements, particularly in
regard to
Ohmygod! I know it's relatively rare but.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:36:16 +1100
Subject: Re: Reservations about DA 16-45
On 23/11/06, John
I used mine recently when i spent 2 weeks on fraser island, I shot in
some pretty ugly lighting situations and experienced no flare with the
16-45.
Paul
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Or this
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/awful_flare2947.jpg
I've been photographing this boat under a
Funny you should mention the A 35-105/3.5. That is one of my most
used lenses these days. It is excellent and very well built. But it
doesn't go very wide on the DSLR's. In fact, I just got back from
doing a family portrait session and that is the only lens I ended up
using.
--
Bruce
John,
I'll put in my 2 cents. On an extended vacation out of the country, I
found myself using this lens most of the time. It is very convenient
and delivers good results.
Wide open or in big, detailed landscapes, the 77mm or 31mm limiteds
outperformed it in terms of resolution, but it is so
Okay. How about a shot directly into an August sun on water?. It
doesn't get any worse than that. I think this lens manages flare as
well as any lens I've ever shot with. I have some classic Leica glass
and some great Pentax primes. I don't think any of them can pull this
off:
After using the K15/3.5, shielding the lens from flare with my left palm has
become 2nd nature to me. I don't use the hood with this zoom as I think the
front barrel wobbles too much (and I have concluded that this characteristic
does affect the optical alignment and sharpness, after many tests).
71 matches
Mail list logo
