Peter J. Alling wrote: > My biggest objection is that it makes a very > expensive special purpose lens into the equivalent of a cheap badly > designed lens.
I suppose it's just a matter of personal taste, although I did mention that I'm planning on using it on film bodies as well. And speaking of expensive, I now have a full-frame super wide angle lens for $250 less than the DA 14mm that I can use on all my bodies. > I suppose I was a bit disappointed, I happen to like fisheyes > and using > them in a situation where you can minimize the fisheye effect on full > frame is > more what I expected. Ok, here are a few of the images that really sold me on this lens. These ones showed some distortion: Guitar: http://www.pbase.com/image/36692773 Museum: http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/image/28610905 Phone: http://www.pbase.com/image/33933780 Dog: http://www.pbase.com/image/26897289 Here are some where the distortion is minimized: Birthday: http://www.pbase.com/image/33014871 Fish: http://www.pbase.com/image/28988352 Mountains: http://www.pbase.com/image/34265101 Snow: http://www.pbase.com/image/26302807 Grave: http://www.pbase.com/image/33493063 And hey, if you don't like these, that's cool...that's what makes this list interesting. <G> Amita
