Thanks Mark. Funny how thers overxposure with the 16-45mm. In fact it might be a wide angle problem. I often get overexposed images with my A2.8/20mm - on film too!!?? Jens
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Mark Stringer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. oktober 2004 01:43 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Which wide angle zoom for the *ist D? I agree the DA16-45 should be the solution. If you can take one out and shoot in bright sunlight and you are satisfied with the results, go for it. I know there are a lot of satisfied owners of this lens. I am going to send mine to Pentax with a memory card with examples, but they wanted my camera also. I do not want to send my camera at this time. The first link shows the problem http://www.cmstringer.com/pentaxtest/ The second link is all DA16-45 photos but with -1 EV. They look pretty good. http://www.cmstringer.com/abbeville5/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frantisek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Which wide angle zoom for the *ist D? > When I had the same problem, I tried several. Several PJs, also > myself, tried the Sigma 17-35. We all agreed that it's bad. IMNSHO, > stay away from it. It's bad even on APS crop digital. The Sigma > 3.5-5.6/18-50 is a cheap lens, not good optically until f/8. But it as > you can get it for about 50 euro used, it might be worth a shot until > you can get something better (which is why it ended in my bag, for > exactly that reason, and I get paid even for images from this lens... > gasp! I dislike using it though, and it was only unplanned additional > living expenses that kept me so far from buying a 2.8/20-35 Nikkor or > better a 2.8/17-35 Nikkor). Still, it was IMO better than the 17-35 DG > Sigma... The 2.8/18-50 Sigma is too new to tell anything about. I saw > just some sample pictures on the internet which had obvious corner > softness wide open, but I distrust internet samples, I prefer using a > lens myself. I have no direct experience with the rest (except the, > now discontinued, Tokina 3.5-3.5/20-35 which I used on film, bought > new, it broke on me three times before returning it for a refund... > the 19-35 Tokina is more plasticky than the older 20-35...). Vivitar > S1 is AFAIK a rebadged Cosina 19-35. I have saw several torn apart > cheap Cosina zooms. It seems they are bottom of the pack (unlike their > SL series and rangefinder series primes!). You can also consider used > Tokina ATX 2.8/20-35. Used it goes for around 300-350 Euro. I almost > got one, one friend from a big daily paper used it with D1X, and said > it was good. The only one I tried on my camera was very bad though. > Might be sample variance or bad usage by the previous owner. It was > very small for a fast wide zoom, but the used sample I tried was > optically very bad. Still, I know that judging used lenses is near > impossible, their previous life might have ruined it (and believe me, > I have myself ruined optically some - before I acquired them - > perfectly good lenses <vbg>) > > From what I heard, you could make best with the Pentax DA 16-45. No > personal experience with it though. > > This is all very subjective, and thus my opinions may be totally > unusable for your situation. I do mostly photojournalism type jobs, so I need > best performance near wide open, and I don't care a bit about > geometric distortions. You might do more architecture, and geometric > distortions might make an otherwise fine lens unsuitable for you. Or > you might be better with a 20mm prime? who knows ;-) Try to get to a > good shop who carries most of them and ask them to test them outside > on your camera. They should cooperate. That's the best way. > > Good light! > fra > >
