you've got a bad sample. that simple, end of story. 16-45 records as much as the sensor can capture.
best, mishka On 8/24/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
