Then I withdraw my comment:-). Paul On Jun 24, 2006, at 3:51 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
