I took special note of his highest contrast image, and saw nothing to justify his conclusion about CA. I've certainly never noticed it my results.. I do find the barrel distortion to be fairly noticeable at times, minor though it may be, but when I compare my results to a couple of guys I know who shoot Canon Zooms pretty much exclusively I feel pretty good about that lens. Now you may have been disappointed in the 43mm I'm not, in fact it pretty much replaced my 50mm lenses for most purposes when I was still shooting film. Then again I don't stitch images to produce panoramas, but the 43mm probably wouldn't be my lens of choice for that anyway.
Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 08/07/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Look, I take exception to the reviews of lenses that I use regularly. >> On the 43mm ltd. he says that "CAs could be a little lower for a >> fix-focal" so I downloaded and examined a couple of his sample images >> that should easily show CA if there was any. I opened them in Photoshop >> and blew it up about 3-4x to see what evidence there was for CA. I saw >> plenty of artifacts some bloom, (but not much), but nothing that could >> be definitively called CA. In real world use I'd have to say there >> wasn't any to worry about, the lens clearly out preforms the sensor in >> normal use. >> > > Well as you likely recall I owned a 43 LTD for a few years but found > it to offer me less than the performance I required so I sold it. Of > my current lenses he has tested six of the same models, one FA version > of an A version lens that I own, another lens that I used to own and > one 3rd party in another mount. I can honestly say that I pretty much > agree entirely with his assessment of each of them (granted none were > particularly cheap lenses). That's good enough for me. > > Back to CA, it's a funny one, often it's not anywhere near as obvious > in low contrast/saturated areas, so some shots really seem to show it > well and others tend to mask it but it's still there if you look (read > pixel peep). CA is of interest to me as it's the one type of anomaly > apart from edge sharpness that can really degrade the quality of > stitched panos, geometric distortion and vignetting are of far less > consequence. So I do tend to take special note of lenses capabilities > in these problem areas (i.e. I readily admit to pixel peeping). > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
