Any tests conducted without a sturdy tripod are meaningless. Paul On Jun 24, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Hello Shel, > > Since your findings seem to be a little different than mine and some > others, one has to wonder if there is some sample to sample variation > at work here. When I still owned my FA *24/2.0 (second one) I had > poor luck with it relative to sharpness and detail. The biggest > reason for it was to do family portraits with the *istD. When I got > the DA 16-45, I did quite a bit of testing with the two and the zoom > was much better than that particular prime. Again, this could be a > good sample of the zoom and a poor sample of the prime. Hard to say. > Anyway, I appreciate the report and your working with the lens. > > -- > Bruce > > > Saturday, June 24, 2006, 9:21:00 AM, you wrote: > > SB> The DA 16-45 has been on the camera and in almost constant use for > a little > SB> more than week now. Overall, it's a pretty decent lens, but, imo, > not > SB> worthy of the praise it's received here. > > SB> It's fine for portraits, some landscapes and scenics, and even > works nicely > SB> with close-ups and macro shots. That's what a lot of people here > seem to > SB> use the lens for, at least based on pictures posted that have been > made > SB> with this lens. > > SB> However, it doesn't do well when asked to render fine detail. > Compared to > SB> an A50/1.4 or a K35/2.0, the DA 16-50 does not fare well. I was > SB> disappointed in the results it produced here > > SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html > > SB> and here > > SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/hood_3096.jpg > > SB> In order to generate acceptable sharpness and detail these pics > had to > SB> receive quite a bit more sharpening than similar pics made with > the prime > SB> lenses I mentioned. Used with landscapes in which there was a lot > of > SB> detail was also disappointing. > > SB> I like the convenience of a zoom, and for certain types of photos > the 16-45 > SB> is a fine lens, but, IMO, you should choose your subjects > carefully if you > SB> want the best results. I'm not sure if I'd buy this lens unless > the price > SB> was ~very~ good. I am, nonetheless, looking forward to trying the > SB> yet-to-be-released DA 16-50/2.8 The focal range suits a lot of > the work I > SB> do. Maybe the 16-50 will be sharper and better able to render > fine detail > SB> I like, and the extra stop of speed will be very much appreciated. > SB> Shooting with f/4.0 just doesn't cut it for me in many instances. > > > SB> Shel > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
