Put black india ink in the scratch? Bob S.
On 4/11/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the 12-24 is a shade better than the 16-45 at 16. But that's
> just a gut reaction. I haven't tested them. I shoot. I don't test.
> Paul
> On Apr 11, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Gonz wrote:
>
> > I have both and I think that they are comparable at 16mm. Myself and
> > another list member are conducting formal tests and should have a more
> > definitive answer hopefully soon.
> >
> >
> > Jerome Reyes wrote:
> >> Trusty Pentaxians,
> >> To prepare for a trip, I find myself having to e-bay / replace my
> >> 16-45mm
> >> lens. There's a scratch on the front element that shows up in photos
> >> if I
> >> close down past f8 or so.
> >> With that in mind, I'm trying to take the opportunity to re-evaluate
> >> my
> >> lens situation. In short, the question is: should I get a new 16-45
> >> or the
> >> 12-24mm? More specifically, my main question is how do the two
> >> compare at
> >> 16mm? I'm not sure if any one can answer this besides Paul (he came
> >> up on
> >> just about every search in the archives), but any feedback will be
> >> appreciated.
> >> Other thoughts: Current lenses are 20-35, 24-70, 50, 70-200mm. Main
> >> camera
> >> is *ist-D.
> >> How distorted is the 12-24mm at the wide end? I noticed that Paul
> >> corrects
> >> his shots in PS... but I don't own PS, so that won't be an option.
> >> It'll
> >> be used 70% of the time for landscapes / waterfalls. While the
> >> 12-24mm is
> >> nicely wide, I think I'll miss the versatility of the 16-45mm. The
> >> other
> >> option is getting a 14mm... but that's running a distant 3rd right
> >> now.
> >> Just thinking aloud.
> >> - Jerome
> >
> > --
> > Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I
> > was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger.
> > "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that
> > camera man?
> > - Mitch Hedberg
> >
>
>
