On 1/05/07 1:57 PM, "David Savage", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see a slight amount in the tree & building but none in the road. > > I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my > archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious "fishiness". So > I'm withdrawing my "pretty much non-existent" comment. Funnily enough > almost all the shots I've made with this lens have been taken at the 10mm FL. You did not say it is near-rectilinear or anything like that. What you said was "by 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent." which I agree. Nobody expects this lens be near-rectilinear at any FL, and if you look at images closely, you always find curvature somewhere. But I agree that in some occasions, and particularly when choosing compositions carefully (avoid straight lines as much as possible etc), curvature might look "pretty much non-existent", and sometimes you might even be able to get away with it if talking to the uninitiated people. I no longer have an FEZ (I used to have a film version which was sold to one of the list members) but I thought the film version exhibited more curvature than DA version (I could be wrong). As FEZ is unique and it does help when trying to capture as much interior or landscape as possible, with a knowledge that it could be made rectilinear later, I intend to buy a DA version at some point. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
