I third the lens. I paid $185 Canadian, included shipping, from RUGIFT in Russia.
Three weeks door to door. I think i got a good one, as the pictures look decently crisp. Dave On 4/25/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> From: eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: 2007/04/25 Wed AM 04:41:53 GMT > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: newbie question on aperatures > >> > >> Been looking at some wide angle lenses for my DL, and been noticing that > >> while any truly wide angle lense is awfully expensive (yeah, I know, > >> photography is an expensive hobby), the ones with big aperatures are > >> noticeably cheaper than those with small aperatures, numerically > >> speaking (i.e a 1:2.8 is more than one with 1:3.5). > > > > Suprisingly, the Zenitar 16mm/f2.8 is one of the cheapest lenses > > available and is also very good. You just need to be aware that > > individual samples can vary in quality, so you need to buy one that you > > can try first or go to a decent dealer. On 35mm, it's a fisheye but > > this is reduced noticably when used on a DSLR. It's a manual focus, > > non-A lens, so you need to set the custom function allowing use of the > > aperture ring, use M mode and press the +/- button before each shot. > > > You beat me to it... I was going to recommend this lens as well. > Not very fishy (I use it as a regular lens when I need something > faster/wider/sharper than the kit zoom). > > >> > >> I know the aperature controls how much light enters the lens (along with > >> shutter speed), and a smaller aperature number means more light can > >> enter. Other than making it easier to get an in-focus picture while > >> hand holding the camera, what other reason would I want to get a smaller > >> number aperature? Considering 90%+ of my photography is done of > >> non-moving subjects, and using a tripod, can I compensate with a slower > >> shutter speed, or longer exposures? > >> > > So long as your subject isn't moving, faster lenses (i.e. smaller > aperture numbers) aren't necessary if you can compensate in other ways > like you mentioned (slower shutter speeds, higher ISO, etc). As someone > mentioned, faster lenses are typically the "higher-end" models and are > often better quality... although not necessarily. The two big reasons why > one might get a slower lens are cost and weight... slower lenses can be > physically smaller and thus lighter. > > Most arguments favor faster lenses... more opportunities. > > -Cory > > -- > > ************************************************************************* > * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * > * Electrical Engineering * > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * > ************************************************************************* > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
