Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't know how much better you could get the optics in the current fisheye,
> it is amongst the best.
One can always hope...tho' I have to admit I'm content with mine.
It *is* a gap in the FA lineup...
> I really don't believe that AF on a fisheye will give
> anyone but a blind person a photographic advantage, even with ultra-close-
> ups using my fisheye I have never had a problem with focus, is it just me?
Couldn't you make the same argument for any focal length?
I guess there's two schools of thought on this in regards to short
lenses. One says there's so much DOF that any small focusing errors will
be covered. The other school says there's so much DOF it's hard to see
exactly where to focus.
You can make opposite arguments in regards to long lenses.
Personally, I wouldn't mind an FA fisheye built like one of the macro
lenses.
> (I
> also have a problem with AF on macro lenses, if the AF can't adjust the
> macro-focus rails what's the good of it? :-)
This is true when you're doing close-ups. For normal photography with a
macro lens, AF makes sense. In fact it's pretty cool in the case of the
FA 50/2.8. I'm willing to bet that it's the fastest AF'ing lens in the
lineup.
>
> I expect that the Pentax 16mm is as fisheye as you are going to get, it
> adheres to the expected projection formula (since I regularly remap them to
> rectilinear images).
Ok, I'll buy that, I'm probably 'correcting' in the finder.
What are you using to remap? I saw a Quicktime 5 demo a few weeks
ago...instead of a cylinder model, it's a cube now. You can look up and
down.
Thanks.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
