----- Original Message -----
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: DA* 16-50/2.8 CA
On Mar 22, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
My experience differs greatly, but then I've shot several thousand
frames with the DA 16-50/2.8. I know it well.
LOL ... so you're saying the evidence of the several hundred frames I
have, and the ten or twenty I examined carefully for CA and fringing
after finding the ones with similar subject-against-sky that you
presented, isn't real because of your faultless several thousand frames?
Even when I can see the fringing and light CA in the blurry portions of
your example image? ]:-)
Perhaps statistically your lens is a better performer.
I have the evidence right here. It's real: I'm reporting my observations.
There's nothing wrong with the lens, but it does show both CA and
fringing in the normal amounts I see from premium mid- range zoom lenses.
At least my example did. It's not the most-CA-less lens I've seen from
Pentax by any means. This does not mean it is a bad lens.
Paranoia or anti-paranoia ... I guess it makes just as much silliness
whichever side of the fence you decide to be defensive about. ;-)
Its well documented that the 16-50 is all over the map for performance. I
suspect with a lens as poorly put together as this one that decentering
isn't going to be the only optical problem that manifests on one lens but
not another.
A good 16-50, while rare, is a good lens, I suspect that most of them are
pretty average performers, with some are just plain bad.
William Robb
--
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.
