Here is another shot @ 17mm: <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5211.jpg>
Dave On 1/6/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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: > > > 10mm > ><http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5146_1.jpg> > > > > > > 17mm > ><http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5149.jpg> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
