2008/5/8 Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Of these I like
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2264457467_3715e407a7_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/1873614000_eb7bcffdb4_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2105976158_f5943358b8_o.jpg
Thank you all for your feedbacks!
I bought the Pentax 12-24 f4 one... and already in love with the lens :D
I think I will have to buy a new cam for the other lenses because I am not
willing to take it off from the camera! :D :D :D
Cheers,
.timber
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On May 8, 2008, at 6:21 AM, David Savage wrote:
By less challenging, I mean you don't have to worry about the FE
perspective.
You have to worry about the rectilinear perspective ... keystoning,
wide angle smearing, foreground-background size exaggeration have
just as big an influence,
On May 8, 2008, at 9:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you all for your feedbacks!
I bought the Pentax 12-24 f4 one... and already in love with the
lens :D
I think I will have to buy a new cam for the other lenses because I
am not
willing to take it off from the camera! :D :D :D
The Sigma's a good lens for the money, I've had no problems with flare, the
front element is not that large in comparison to some. I couldn't put it
down when I first got it. I'm sure the Pentax is also a very fine lens.
Sample image from last summer:
I have the Sigma in Nikon mount.
Not much use, but i like what it has given me so far.
Dave
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Timber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list!
I am planning to buy a WIDE angle lens. I am hesitating between the
Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 (maybe Pentax 10-17
Ahhh... but there is fisheye then there is fisheye:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1207/1156628029_59615df340_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/1452643623_1619e0b9e3_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2105976158_f5943358b8_o.jpg
Timber wrote:
I am planning to buy a WIDE angle lens. I am hesitating between the
Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 (maybe Pentax 10-17 Fisheye)
Hmm, I'm pondering the same choice myself. I don't have any experience
with either lens.
I've had nothing but excellent experiences with the Sigma
Hi Mark
Did you at sometime own the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4?
Regards,
John
On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:07:19 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote
Timber wrote:
I am planning to buy a WIDE angle lens. I am hesitating between the
Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 (maybe Pentax 10-17 Fisheye)
Hmm, I'm
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Mark
Did you at sometime own the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4?
Yes I did. I sold it when I bought the Pentax 16-50/2.8 but I always
found the Tamron to be a wonderful lens. Highly recommended. They
stopped making it in Pentax mount, at least for a while.
--
PDML
Thanks Mark
Good to know you have a positive impression, I've been offered one at
reasonable cost and I'm trying to make a decision. It would make a good wide
to normal zoom FL wise.
Regards,
John
On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:36:56 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote
John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Mark
John Whittingham wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:36:56 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote
John Whittingham wrote:
Did you at sometime own the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4?
Yes I did. I sold it when I bought the Pentax 16-50/2.8 but I always
found the Tamron to be a wonderful lens. Highly recommended. They
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I always loved its image quality. The main reason I went to the Pentax
16-50 was for the weather sealing, which can be important for the kind
of photography I like most. (How some of my cameras and lenses have
survived downpours on Grandfather
David Savage wrote:
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I always loved its image quality. The main reason I went to the Pentax
16-50 was for the weather sealing, which can be important for the kind
of photography I like most. (How some of my cameras and lenses have
survived downpours
Daveyou got a flame proof suit by any chance? 8)
John
On Wed, 7 May 2008 22:37:49 +0800, David Savage wrote
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I always loved its image quality. The main reason I went to the Pentax
16-50 was for the weather sealing, which can be important
To me it suggests that the whole weather sealing thing may be a bit of
a sales gimmick.
Cheers,
Dave
On lens? I think yes. On body? Sure not :D
I've used K10D/K20D in rain, snow, dust etc.
Once I was with a group of photographers in a big snowfall. Line up was: 5
Canon EOS 350D/400D, 1
I dare you to test that hypothesis on your own gear!
I know I wouldn't submit non-sealed equipment to what I've put my K10D
and 16-50/2.8 through! (With the ist-D and non-sealed lenses I at least
tried to protect my gear in the rain, with the K10D and 16-50 I just let
it all hang out.)
Use
David Savage wrote:
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David Savage wrote:
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I always loved its image quality. The main reason I went to the Pentax
16-50 was for the weather sealing, which can be important for the kind
of photography I
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David Savage wrote:
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I always loved its image quality. The main reason I went to the Pentax
16-50 was for the weather sealing, which can be important for the kind
of photography I like most. (How some
Of these I like
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2264457467_3715e407a7_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/1873614000_eb7bcffdb4_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2105976158_f5943358b8_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1207/1156628029_59615df340_o.jpg
I don't know that a
with the K10D and 16-50 I just let it all hang out.)
Way, way, way, too much information...
Mark Roberts wrote:
David Savage wrote:
2008/5/7 Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I always loved its image quality. The main reason I went to the Pentax
16-50 was for the weather sealing,
Sigma lens quality is extremely variable. For that reason I stick
with Pentax lenses, which have been less likely to have problems
right out of the box.
G
On May 6, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Timber wrote:
Hi list!
I am planning to buy a WIDE angle lens. I am hesitating between the
Sigma 10-20
Timber, there was just a thread on this topic on April 22 - 23 if you
check the archives. :)
Amita
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Timber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list!
I am planning to buy a WIDE angle lens. I am hesitating between the
Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 (maybe Pentax
One thing I would consider is what you want to use the lens for. For
me, wide angles are generally for landscape photography and this
introduces an additional issue to consider - the sun... The Pentax SMC
coating has always been far better than Sigma at avoiding flare and
ghosting and for this
Are bug hunk of glass lenses compound?
Rob Brigham wrote:
One thing I would consider is what you want to use the lens for. For
me, wide angles are generally for landscape photography and this
introduces an additional issue to consider - the sun... The Pentax SMC
coating has always been far
My 10-17 is my favorite lens. Not the most used
(that's the 16-45), but my favorite. The fisheye
distortion is there if you want to use it, and
controllable when you don't.
Rick
--- Timber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list!
I am planning to buy a WIDE angle lens. I am
hesitating between
The Pentax lens is excellent. It has been a money maker and a
pleasure for me. I have no experience with that particular Sigma
lens, but my experience with the Sigma brand in general would give me
pause. And I wouldn't buy a fisheye unless you want to shoot fisheye
pics. Yes, you can
I have found the Sigma 10-20 very resistant to flare.
The sun was behind very thin cloud in this shot,
http://rconn.zenfolio.com/p1019193613/?photo=h39448641#960792129 and you can
tell this by the water reflection. I am satisfied :)
PS - click on the image to get a full screen version.
Rod
28 matches
Mail list logo
