On 22 Mar 2001, at 22:30, tom wrote:
> Well...maybe an update to the optics wouldn't be such a bad thing. I
> have to admit I wouldn't mind AF, along with the sensor array on the
> MZ-S. I often get about 6 inches away from my subjects using the
> fisheye, and DOF diminishes quite a bit...AF might help.
>
> Then again, it might not.
>
> Does anyone else think the 16/2.8 is less 'fishy' than other fisheyes?
> I've seen some other fisheye shot lately, and it seems to be some of
> them have more distortion than my Pentax.
>
> Any thoughts? Am I imagining this?
Tom,
I don't know how much better you could get the optics in the current fisheye,
it is amongst the best. I really don't believe that AF on a fisheye will give
anyone but a blind person a photographic advantage, even with ultra-close-
ups using my fisheye I have never had a problem with focus, is it just me? (I
also have a problem with AF on macro lenses, if the AF can't adjust the
macro-focus rails what's the good of it? :-)
I expect that the Pentax 16mm is as fisheye as you are going to get, it
adheres to the expected projection formula (since I regularly remap them to
rectilinear images).
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Fax +61-2-9554-9259
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
