Several images were made using a sturdy tripod. Only the car hood was done without a tripod.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > Any tests conducted without a sturdy tripod are meaningless. > > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
