Here's a few of my full sized samples: @160mm f5.6, ISO 100 (~1.2MB) <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/K10D/_IGP3537.jpg>
Ugly creature @180mm f5.6, ISO 1000 (~2.1MB) <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/K10D/_IGP4083.jpg> @200mm f5.6, ISO 400 (~1.8MB) <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/K10D/_IGP3523.jpg> Cheers, Dave On 7/8/07, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/07/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For what it cost it's not too bad, but I tend to compare all zooms to > > the FA* 80-200, and in that light it's a piece of shit. :-) And even > > compared to the FA 28-105 Powerzoom it's not that impressive. > > I've thought about getting hold of the Samsung version (pretty > inexpensive at Teds) as light knock about lens but I was certainly > under no illusion that it would perform as well as my costly primes. I > think that the test is fair and the only thing that might really be a > bother to me are the strange double image type aberrations that Bill > mentioned. It's still great value for the money though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
