Maybe not what Shel likes but still impressive IMO. The question is: I have the 18-55 and considring the price I got it at (70 euros), the 16-45 seems a bit pricey. Of course I could by the 2.8 zoom which is coming our way but I beleive I won't be able to afford that for quite a time. The 12-24 is interesting for me 'cos I'm not much into WA so a zoom is indeed a better solution but again, price is steep. A 14-28/3,5-5,6 would be better for me on a financial POV of course. And then the K10 is tempting lol...
2006/8/24, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well > the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic > flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the > relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges > are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588&size=lg > > Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a > small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up > the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can > deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at > 10 megapixels remains to be seen. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553&size=lg > > Paul > On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- ---------------------- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille ---------------------- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
