replying to myself: the surprising result that 16-45 appears sharper than 50/1.7 may be explained be the fact that i shot 16-45 @f16 and 50/[EMAIL PROTECTED] still 16-45 is much sharper than i expected, despite feeling like a wobbly plasticky piece of shit. i should have probably done it all at iso 200 and f/11, but at this point i've learned all i wanted and i doubt i'll be able to force myself to repeat this excercise.
best, mishka On 4/7/06, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > just ran a quick test with a few lenses: > A50/1.7 (+tc) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+tc) > 100/2.5 VC1 macro > the tc is viv. 2x macro > and results srprise me quite a bit. > (1) 16-45 has significantly more contrast than 50/1.7, > (2) even with a tc it's approaching a dedicated macro lens > (3) every lens outresolves the sensor significantly. > > if anyone cares to see the files, let me know. > > best, > mishka > > On 4/7/06, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7 Apr 2006 at 20:54, Mishka wrote: > > > > > wouldn't this work:: > > > 1. shoot a scene w/ a lens, > > > 2. shoot it w/ the same lens + a tc > > > see if (2) tc gives more detail > > > ? > > > > Assuming it's a matched and high enough resolution TC, yes. IOW don't try it > > with a Kenko. > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http:/home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > >
