On Jan 5, 2014, at 6:05 PM, John <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/4/2014 5:16 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Boris Liberman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Attila, you have to realize that this Sigma has nothing on the >>> market to compare it to. DA* 16-50 is a different lens. It has WR, >>> it is wider and longer as far as zoom range goes, while Sigma >>> boasts tremendous image quality and the USB dock so that you could >>> play with your copy to your heart liking. >>> >>> I'm not buying Sigma and I'm not re-buying DA* 16-50. But I very >>> much would like Pentax to do something rather unlimited and produce >>> a lens that will compete with Sigma in IQ dept face to face. >> >> Have you compared teh Sigma and the 16-50? The latter, when properly >> assembled, has very good image quality. >> >> Paul > > It does make me wonder why you felt the need to add that qualifier?
It woulds seem it’s difficult to assemble it correctly in terms of element alignment. Some new lenses had flat field problems. However, when it’s good, it’s very very good. Paul > > -- > 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.
