Hi, You'd have to compare this shot to one made with another lens. I do have a similar shot made with a prime - I think the K35/2.0 or the A 50/1.4 - and the difference in detail and tonal quality - especially tonal quality - is quite obvious. I'll see if I can find that shot - it wasn't on the web page that I looked at. So, while it shows an example of what I consider to be fine detail, it doesn't show and compare the quality of the detail that can be had with other lenses, therefore my earlier comment that the lens doesn't do that well rendering fine detail.
However - and bear in mind that this is something I just use as a guide - the amount of sharpening necessary to get a good web result was consistently greater than with any of my other lenses. While i know that's often dependent on subject and lighting, I was consistently using 80% plus to get a good result with the 16-45, while with my other lenses, with the exception of the K18/3.5, I usually sharpen at between 40% and 55%, and in some instances even less. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis > http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html, yes? > > Thanks for reposting it, but this comes with your comment of lacking > fine detail, as opposed to something that shows it. I am none the > wiser, but I understand you no longer have the lens, so can't ask for > a reshoot to understand what I am missing. > > The quest continues :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
