Well, I like it, and don't mind said softness. Just as minor question,
since you happened to downsize it anyway, what's the difference between
some shot with the 1.4 and another without the 1.4 but cropped to the
same image? Did that often in the film age, when I realized my vivitar
2x was just not good enough... and Ektar 25 was available.
LF
John Sessoms escreveu:
I've been looking for the owl I heard earlier this month, trying to get
some idea of its habits. Yesterday, I spotted it on the nest I thought
it might use, and came back today with my camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jb_sessoms/3396685627/
K10D, Sigma 300 2.8 + Sigma APO 1.4x tele-converter, on a tripod ...
ISO 400 (I think)
The image is a bit soft. I've noticed that whenever I use the 1.4x
converter, even though it's supposed to be matched to the lens.
It just kills me. Some guy came along with a Nikon D200 & 200 mm Nikon
IS lens and chimping what he got looked a whole lot sharper than what I
got.
But ... it's what I got.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
