I'll do some controlled detail pics when I have a chance. I would like to see something definitive on this. Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> There are at least two or three others on the list that feel as I do - > that > the lens is over rated. > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Paul Stenquist > >> Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail >> extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and >> 11. >> Paul >> On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >>> I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over >>> rated, >>> especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, >>> some >>> landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine >>> details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using >>> it, >>> i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it >>> wide >>> open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant >>> objects. >>> >>> Shel >>> >>> >>> >>>> [Original Message] >>>> From: Paul Stenquist >>> >>>> I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a >>>> longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always >>>> accurate. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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
