On 5 Nov 2003 at 9:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Unfortunately most of the primes on this list are older optical designs, > primarily because pentax hasn't made a lot of new ultrawides I assume. > The 15/3.5 design apparently isn't great (nor is the equivalent Nikkor), > the 20/4.5 is generally held to be not the best.
Virtually all of the Pentax wide primes performed as well as if not better than their competition of the day from other manufacturers. > I'm curious what is WRONG with the images delivered by these lenses on the > *istD, especially compared to the images delivered by the same lenses on film? > Sharpness and contrast? (The *istD is known to "undersharpen" its images > electronically, and the sensor in it does appear to be less sharp by nature than > the Canon and possibly the Fuji sensors). Distortion? Mix the existing subtle chromic aberrations with Bayer colour sensor matrix and lenslets and you end up with exaggeration of the error, as we've seen in many of the sample images presented thus far. > I'd actually > expect Pentax lenses to perform better on a digital camera than most > because Pentax seems to optimize for center sharpness at the cost of > corner sharpness and digital of course doesn't use the corners. Well a diagonal of AOV 28.4mm across the sensor for the *ist D can hardly be deemed as "doesn't use the corners" (of the lenses projected image). The sensor covers almost 66% of the diagonal compared to a standard 35mm film frame. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
