My experience differs greatly, but then I've shot several thousand
frames with the DA 16-50/2.8. I know it well.
Paul
On Mar 22, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
DA* 16-50 paranoia is upon us again. ...
Seriously, the DA 16-50 s is probably the most CA-free (or perhaps
second best to the DA* 50-135) from among my twenty or so Pentax
lenses. ...
huh? Not for me. I felt this lens was a good performer but never
really liked using it all that much. Never had anything really bad
to say about it either. That summation seems a bit of hyperbole.
Looking at your example, Paul, I see a bit of R/G CA, a bit more Y/B
CA, and a bit of blooming (aka fringing). It's harder to see in your
example as the edges against the sky are blurred.
Depending on the focal length, when I look at my photos made with
this lens, I've typically dialed in -30 R/G and +60 Y/B CA
correction. On a more extreme case in my files (sharply focused
barbed wire against overcast sky), it needed a bit more (-36, +82)
as well as fringing reduction. No big deal: it's well within the
range of possible corrections.
The DA21, FA43, DA70, FA77, and DA14 all require smaller
corrections, on average. Zooms are nearly always harder to correct,
of course.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
