At close range, there's still considerable distortion, but you're right, for things such as distant landscapes it makes a passable 24mm lens. The only other lenses I have that could be considered wide are a 24-50 Sigma and the 28-105 PZ Pentax. On the other end though, my 75-300 Tamron and 500 mirror Quantaray give me some helacious tele, and with the ability to, if necessary, shoot at 3200, I may be able to get some fairly decent wildlife shots Quality would probably be poor, but think; 1500mm/f16.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:38 PM Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye & *istD > On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >It's the moon. I posted this to show how much less distortion there is > >using just the center of this lens instead of full frame. > > Right. So, if it's a 16mm, it's acting like a 24mm on the *ist D, no? If > correct, it's not a bad wide angle at all. That looks perfectly useable > to me Bob. Considering the high cost of ultra wides, I'd say this was a > good budget-conscious solution for the *D > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _____________________________ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > >
