Mine were conducted on a solid tripod focused to the same location (manually) and zoomed to the same focal length. Multiple tests at all apertures.
-- Bruce Saturday, June 24, 2006, 12:18:05 PM, you wrote: PS> Any tests conducted without a sturdy tripod are meaningless. PS> Paul PS> On Jun 24, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> Hello Shel, >> >> Since your findings seem to be a little different than mine and some >> others, one has to wonder if there is some sample to sample variation >> at work here. When I still owned my FA *24/2.0 (second one) I had >> poor luck with it relative to sharpness and detail. The biggest >> reason for it was to do family portraits with the *istD. When I got >> the DA 16-45, I did quite a bit of testing with the two and the zoom >> was much better than that particular prime. Again, this could be a >> good sample of the zoom and a poor sample of the prime. Hard to say. >> Anyway, I appreciate the report and your working with the lens. >> >> -- >> Bruce >> >> >> Saturday, June 24, 2006, 9:21:00 AM, you wrote: >> >> SB> The DA 16-45 has been on the camera and in almost constant use for >> a little >> SB> more than week now. Overall, it's a pretty decent lens, but, imo, >> not >> SB> worthy of the praise it's received here. >> >> SB> It's fine for portraits, some landscapes and scenics, and even >> works nicely >> SB> with close-ups and macro shots. That's what a lot of people here >> seem to >> SB> use the lens for, at least based on pictures posted that have been >> made >> SB> with this lens. >> >> SB> However, it doesn't do well when asked to render fine detail. >> Compared to >> SB> an A50/1.4 or a K35/2.0, the DA 16-50 does not fare well. I was >> SB> disappointed in the results it produced here >> >> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html >> >> SB> and here >> >> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/hood_3096.jpg >> >> SB> In order to generate acceptable sharpness and detail these pics >> had to >> SB> receive quite a bit more sharpening than similar pics made with >> the prime >> SB> lenses I mentioned. Used with landscapes in which there was a lot >> of >> SB> detail was also disappointing. >> >> SB> I like the convenience of a zoom, and for certain types of photos >> the 16-45 >> SB> is a fine lens, but, IMO, you should choose your subjects >> carefully if you >> SB> want the best results. I'm not sure if I'd buy this lens unless >> the price >> SB> was ~very~ good. I am, nonetheless, looking forward to trying the >> SB> yet-to-be-released DA 16-50/2.8 The focal range suits a lot of >> the work I >> SB> do. Maybe the 16-50 will be sharper and better able to render >> fine detail >> SB> I like, and the extra stop of speed will be very much appreciated. >> SB> Shooting with f/4.0 just doesn't cut it for me in many instances. >> >> >> SB> Shel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
