On Jul 13, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Rob,
Could you post or send a 100K or so uncropped JPEG made with the
16/2.8 and
the istD? It would be a plus if you could have a person in the
pic, or
maybe a shot of a house or a street. No bugs or flowers ... maybe
just a
shot out your window of the house across the street. Something on
that
order. Tks!
Shel
Not what you requested, Shel ... but in response to Rob's comment
about the DA14:
This is a typical hand-held photo taken with the DA14 using the *ist DS:
(warning: Full resolution, 500 Mbyte file)
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/castle-door-3038.jpg
image data:
ISO 200 @ f/4 @ 1/100 sec, Av mode, Pattern AF & AE
-captured in RAW
-converted with ACR 3.1 set to As Shot defaults, 8bit RGB output into
Photoshop
- 1 pass with PSCS2 Smart Sharpen @ 50%, 1.4 pixel setting
- Converted to sRGB colorspace
- JPEG compression at #4 for file output, tagged with sRGB profile
I'd like to see a similar, typical hand held shot with the 15/3.5 and
16mm fisheye, defished, for comparison, on a D or DS body.
I'd also like to see a comparison shot with a 20mm lens on a 35mm
film body as this is the ultrawide field of view I'm usually
after ... Had a 15mm rectilinear lens for 35mm film once and found it
to be too wide for my preference.
Godfrey
[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert
It been answered already but I'll ad my bit. I own a 15/3.5 and a
16/2.8
fisheye and if I were just shooting digital when I purchased these
lenses, I'd
probably only have bought the fisheye. Apart from the weight and size
differential I'll bet that either of these two lenses would be as
good as if
not better performers than the 14/2.8DA on a digital SLR and both
would be far
superior on a film camera.
