Hello Cameron, I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not.
-- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, August 20, 2005, 11:05:06 AM, you wrote: CH> I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about CH> this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly CH> unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what CH> they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results CH> they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. CH> Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took CH> me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, CH> you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. CH> I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA CH> 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the CH> sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The CH> results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use CH> proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone CH> PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. CH> Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - CH> in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you CH> jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can CH> correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at CH> 24"x36" with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso CH> 800 at 13x19", as well. CH> One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even CH> less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of CH> the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - CH> you don't even have to focus. CH> I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list CH> said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, CH> oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, CH> so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed CH> them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting CH> because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film CH> in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own CH> mind. I can only tell you my experience. CH> When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was CH> stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium CH> format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always CH> wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to CH> posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain CH> of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my CH> experience. CH> If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, CH> drop me a line. CH> Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you CH> don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this CH> magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or CH> sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. CH> Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some CH> lucky bastard in my will. CH> Thanks, CH> Cameron
