On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, William Robb wrote:
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
Some, but this is really bad...
Can you show us something?
TIA!
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Some, but this is really bad...
Can you show us something?
What would you like to see?
BTW, I was just funnin' about the fisheye thing.
It's a pretty cool lens.
Can anyone recommend a defishing
Can you show us something?
What would you like to see?
BTW, I was just funnin' about the fisheye thing.
It's a pretty cool lens.
Can anyone recommend a defishing utility?
No way. If we give you a defish, we won't feed you today. But if we
teach you to defish we'll starve you for a
- Original Message -
From: Bob W
Subject: RE: 10-17mm Review
No way. If we give you a defish, we won't feed you today. But if we
teach you to defish we'll starve you for a lifetime.
Im not asking you to give me defish, nor even teach me to defish.
Just point me in the general
for government work. If you send them
sample images they say that they'll produce a profile for your lens.
That probably only applies to people who've actually paid for the product.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Ok, it's in the general direction of deocean.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Bob W
Subject: RE: 10-17mm Review
No way. If we give you a defish, we won't feed you today. But if we
teach you to defish we'll starve you for a lifetime.
Im not asking you
On 7/10/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Some, but this is really bad...
Can you show us something?
What would you like to see?
BTW, I was just funnin' about the fisheye thing.
It's
On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:21 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Ok, it's in the general direction of deocean.
Better deocean than disease.
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert Kepler.
As might be expected, older 17~28mm f/3.5-4.5 F fisheye, also,
approvingly referenced for comparison.
Pg 48
Jack
__
Do
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: 10-17mm Review
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert Kepler.
As might be expected, older 17~28mm f/3.5-4.5 F fisheye, also,
approvingly referenced
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:01 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: 10-17mm Review
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
Some, but this is really bad...
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
That's interesting. The DA 12-24, which is a rectilinear, shows
minimal barrel distortion.
Paul
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:22 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review
Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No?
Some
Subject: 10-17mm Review
FYI, Aug issue of Pop Photo has very positive review of the Pentax
10~17mm f/3.5-4.5 DA fisheye zoom written by Herbert Kepler.
As might be expected, older 17~28mm f/3.5-4.5 F fisheye, also,
approvingly referenced for comparison.
Just proves old Herb is going
14 matches
Mail list logo
