Thursday, January 03, 2002, 2:57:43 AM, Paul wrote:
PFS> Paul replies: Frantisek, I've probably bored readers with my series of
PFS> postings about these two lenses and other 20s; search back a week or two
Thanks. I will also wait for Shel to comment :)
PFS> Paul replies: The Sigma 20/1.8 has been getting raves. With an 82mm front
PFS> filter, it may excel at all apertures.
Doesn't it have 77mm like the other 1.8 24 & 28 EX lenses? I tried out
the 1.8/24mm EX in a shop on a Nikon N80 (they didn't have a Pentax
version), shot half a roll outside the shot at different apertures,
and it confirmed some of the suspicions about the DG letters - that it
is softer considerably in the corners. It really almost doesn't vignette,
though, that's a big plus. I will do a 30x40cm enlargement from some
of the shots, and comment on them later.
PFS> Paul replies: I may have inferred wrongly that early CZJ 20/2.8s were not
PFS> multicoated, based on the following posting on, I believe, a Contax user site:
[...]
PFS> the Tessar 2,8/50, the 1,8/80, and the Flektogon 2,8/20. I own the
PFS> Flektogon in its final multi coating version from 1979 and a Prakticar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is where the confusion is from. AFAIK he doesn't mean
"final multi coated version of the 2.8/20 Flektogon", but he means
"final, multicoated, f/2.8 version of 20mm Flektogon", and the
earlier, singlecoated, f/4 version of 20mm Flektogon is the omitted
here. But of course, I might be wrong. I will ask more knowledgable
though.
Thanks for help. I really don't have any other 20mm and not much
experience with such superwides except the 2.8 Flektogon, so I don't
know the comparsions much. I think the Flektogon is very good in
resolution, although not stellar (the maximum is about 30x40cm, which
is sharp to the corners, but up close there is some softness). It has
some corner coma, though, so it's better at B&W I think. It excels
absolutely in geometric distortion, no visible distortion at all, down
to edge of negs. But prints from a 1.4/50 (my reference lens, of
course <g>) have edge in resolution, which is understandable - a
20mm lens can't very well compete with a 50mm lens in resolution. But
I didn't compare it with a wideangle from Pentax, that's what I would
like to know, e.g. with 2/24 or 2.8/24 A etc. That's up to Shel ;)
Shel, do it well! Thanks in advance!
Good light,
Frantisek
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
