DA* 16-50 question.

If it installs itself on my PC without my permission and reports my activities then as far as I am concerned, it is a virus.

It's worth Googling it to see what others say. It seems to cause some problems.

The program doesn't do anything that any other half way decent processing software would allow you to do yourself better in about five minutes.

Oh no I agree on you on that Oggy, it's a dirty program.

I've Google it and search for the keys and files that it adds and I don't have any of those on my pc

I must admit the most fun I have had with it is getting rid of it. I quite like playing with registries.

Out of interest where did you get your nasty-free copy from? Others might like to know.

Oggy I've no idea how the law works on this matter in the UK since this version isn't officially offered by DxO it could be classified as illegal under your law.
Since this site is UK based and I ain't allowed to promote illegal activity, I'm not sure I should give you the file or direct link to it.

I could say, you could try your luck with usenet and torrent. These are legal ways to share information but what is shared might be illegal and could contain harmful software so watch out what you do.

Fair point on the legality issue and the questionable merit of some of these free downloads. I stear clear of them, even the registry optimisers you find here and there. There are some sights that I trust for a few tips, but the removal will be dne by hand.

These were all shot with the DA* 16-50mm lens during Holy week (Semana Santa) in Lorca, a town close to where I live.

K20D + grip + AF540FGZ flash + Sto-Fen Omnibounce diffuser. All at ISO 800 and most, if not all, at f4.PP'd in Lightroom 2.

Lighting conditions were far from ideal with at least two different temperature street lights and a bit of flash. The use of a slow'ish shutter speed presented more than a few challenges. On the night, I shot 248 frames over 3 hours. These 178 images are the best of the bunch and were taken primarily to show off the embroidery of the numerous garments worn during the processions.

I hope these images, whilst not perfect, give you some idea of what this lens can produce.

Thanks Peter - some very good pictures there. Any idea why some have the exif data with them and others don't?

Maybe what I have to learn here is that because a lens can be selected to a particular combination of settings, does not necessarily mean it will work well with the lens.

I would certainly not say I am disappointed with it having had this confirmed. In the same way I have no problems with having to stop my 150-500 down a little at 500 to get sharp shots. The picture below was taken at 16mm with the 16-50 and has, by the nature of the picture, not suffered from the lens geometry. The sharpness and colour of the original are pleasing to me.

[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Miles.jpg[/IMG]

The question I now have to answer is what lens I need where rectilinearity is more of an issue. The 16-45 seems a strong contender, The 12-24 is a bit above my budget for a lens which is not going to get used a great deal.

I was wondering about the Sigma 10-20s and how their geometry is. Failing that, I guess it's time to start looking at primes (shame:wink

I don't know why some of the EXIF data might be missing. I haven't purposely removed it.

I'll look into it.

The only time I noticed the inherent barrel distortion was when I tried to copy a large'ish print. It was hopeless and I resorted to my FA 50mm Macro for the job.

If it helps picture 1 says "no exif data" but picture has basic data (that's using Firefox exif data tool from a right click).

Here is some interesting information comparing the merits of the 16-45 and 16-50.

link

Cheers,

/Ian

hehheh, that review has trouble justifying the 16-50 when it was 50% more expensive. Wonder how it would have been written now, when its 300% more expensive...

I was only talking with the wife yesterday about missing the Easter Parades .. these just make it worse .. thanks for that

Those Photozone tests that Stefan posted don't lie! The barrel distortion is the one disappointing thing I've found with the 17-70. Other than that it's optically slightly better than 16-45 (whose distortion is the best) and a country mile ahead of the kit. Not used a 16-50, but I think it compares well especially at the wider end, and the extra 20mm is very useful. Other than the distortion (and to a lesser extent the slower aperture than say the 16-50 or more competitively priced Tamron 17-50) the 17-70 is excellent - I'd wholeheartedly recommend it (although it's expensive now!).

BTW can someone explain why people are quoting f nos. when they're comparing barrel distortion. The aperture has no impact on this does it?

I'm using Picasa web albums and it seems that the EXIF data is being stripped out during the upload process. I can find no setting within Picasa to change this behaviour.

Sorry Mike. I have a villa for rent if you want to see them next year