On 2 Dec 2004 at 11:50, Mark Stringer wrote: > I asked about using an A-16mm and Peter Ailing wrote and I tended to agree: > > I have no experience with this lens on the *ist-d but the 17mm fisheye shows > enough distortion to look like a 24mm lens with extremely bad barrel > distortion. > It's neither fish nor fowl. I wouldn't invest for that sole purpose. The lens > itself has a great reputation for what it is and on a 35mm camera I'd love to > have it, but not for the *ist-d. (Just my opinion but you may not mind barrel > distortion).
For some reason I haven't seen the original message yet, it'll probably lob into my mail box next week some time. In any case I have the A16/2.8 and I'm on the disappointed side, I've owned this lens since the late eighties and it's definitely one of the best in its class, sharp great contrast, minimal CA. But on the *ist D it just looks like a really crap WA, one that I'd put on ebay really rapidly. Aside from the small advantage in absolute AOV when required I don't use it a great deal these days, its output just doesn't have the same appeal cropped. Following are two recent pics :-) both FF and shot hand held with the A16/2.8 at f2.8: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP6170.jpg Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
