Well, I disagree with Dave. The lens is still quite "fishy" at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you can see it easily.
It's a great lens. I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my (P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday, and got it. Much fun. Rick --- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent. > > Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the > exact same position): > > 10mm > > <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5146_1.jpg> > > 17mm > > <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5149.jpg> > > HTH > > Dave > > > On 1/6/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've seen some nice pics from this lens. W. > Hamler's recent "Hot Dog > > Heaven" is a prime, err... zoom example. > > > > My question is related to its fishiness. I've > heard that the lens is a > > fisheye at 10mm, but loses its "fishiness" as you > head towards 17mm, so > > that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm. Anyone > have any experience > > that could confirm/disprove this? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gonz > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
