Look, I take exception to the reviews of lenses that I use regularly. On the 43mm ltd. he says that "CAs could be a little lower for a fix-focal" so I downloaded and examined a couple of his sample images that should easily show CA if there was any. I opened them in Photoshop and blew it up about 3-4x to see what evidence there was for CA. I saw plenty of artifacts some bloom, (but not much), but nothing that could be definitively called CA. In real world use I'd have to say there wasn't any to worry about, the lens clearly out preforms the sensor in normal use. He states that the FA 20-35mm shows pronounced CA, in harsh lighting conditions, (sounds more like sensor bloom to me, which have seen, he didn't supply any images so I couldn't check them), but CA is something I'm sure I'd have noticed, and I haven't. He dismisses it because it's from an older era! I mean what the F***. A good tool is a good tool, either it's fitted for it's use or it's not. It doesn't stop being so because it's no longer made. So he damns it with faint praise after his testing shows it to be a superior lens. I have no direct experience with the 16-45. Maybe his review jibes exactly with your experience, but his reviews of the lenses I use don't jibe with mine. Maybe he is real and what I see as a certain snideness is a less than perfect command of English, but I still can't recommend his site.
Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 08/07/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I find it hard to take seriously a reviewer who attributes digital bloom >> as a lens problem and not a sensor problem, (see his review of the 10-17 >> mm fisheye). He seems to find and emphasize the fly in the ointment to >> the extent of manufacturing a fly, in all of his conclusions. I don't >> know if he does this for other manufactures or just Pentax, but then I >> shoot Pentax more or less exclusively these days, so reading reviews of >> Canon Nikon Olympus and Sony specific lenses isn't really going to do me >> much good.. He's not on the same level as K-R, at least he actually >> seems to use the equipment he writes his tests on, but he does seem to >> need to find at least one fault in every review if not several. His >> conclusions on 50-200mm seem to be at odds with the real world >> experience of most everyone on this list who uses one. Admittedly this >> is a Pentax equipment cheering section, but if we're disappointed with a >> piece of Pentax equipment we'll savage it. >> > > Sensor bloom or purple fringing seems, for whatever reasons, to be > catalyzed, exaggerated or exacerbated by the use of certain lenses, I > don't know why but it's pretty easy to prove. Some surmise that > longitudinal CA + saturation is the culprit, whatever the cause some > lenses do tend to create PF. > > On this issue and all others Klaus seems no more critical of Pentax > than any other brand, it's pretty plain to see if you read even a > handful of reviews. So I really don't understand how you seem to have > arrived at the conclusion that Klaus is anything but matter of fact, > his reviews to my mind are some of the least biased and most straight > forward and factual on the web. > > The fact that a handful of people seem to love the 50-200mm warts and > all is no surprise, that's good, it's what makes us all different but > this is very different from an impartial technical assessment of lens > performance. > > Case in point is the DA 16-45/4, I've read so many comments saying how > perfect it is and how it has no CA. But actually having used one now > for some time I know well its limitations and Klaus's straight > assessment of the same lens model virtually confirmed all my issues > with it, I was not alone any longer. > > For what it's worth I don't have any association with him but for a > few brief email exchanges, he seems very genuine and I'm glad that he > produced the site much the same way as I'm glad that Boz made the > Pentax K-mount pages. > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
