On Feb 22, 2007, at 2:11 PM, John Whittingham wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:52:30 -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote >> That's what makes the PDML so valuable. Unless you have to be first >> in line, you'll find many opinions and examples here. >> Paul > > Absolutely and one of the reasons I posed the question, however > we're all > individuals. One of my main problems with ultra wide DSLR lenses is > the CA, > yes I know it can be corrected in RAW conversion but I'd really > like not to > have to. A little distortion, I can live with that, correct it when > needed, a > little vignetting, I can live with that too but less tolerant > depending on > lens and intended purpose.
The DA14 exhibits less than 0.3% rectilinear distortion, zero vignetting, and a very small amount of CA when used wide open. By f/ 4.5, CA is insignificant. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples/ You could program a template for CA reduction in Lightroom and simply apply it to any DA14mm exposures. Or any other lens for that matter. Really John, I think you're making much ado over nothing with regard these two lenses. They're the right lenses for the DSLR line if you want an ultrawide, and no one else's are any better. They're not even hideously expensive. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
