I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road. I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL.
Cheers, Dave At 03:40 AM 6/01/2007, Rick Womer wrote: >Well, I disagree with Dave. The lens is still quite >"fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in >the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you >can see it easily. > >It's a great lens. I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my >(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday, >and got it. Much fun. > >Rick > > >--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent. > > > > Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the > > exact same position): > > > > 10mm > > > > ><http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5146_1.jpg> > > > > 17mm > > > > ><http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5149.jpg> > > > > HTH > > > > Dave > > > > > > On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've seen some nice pics from this lens. W. > > Hamler's recent "Hot Dog > > > Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example. > > > > > > My question is related to its fishiness. I've > > heard that the lens is a > > > fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you > > head towards 17mm, so > > > that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm. Anyone > > have any experience > > > that could confirm/disprove this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Gonz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
