That was with the 15-45 at 21mm, so perhaps it might work better with the 18-55. Also, as a fill in it would probably look slightly better, rather than main source as here.

I'm fishing about for you Nathan, trying to make you feel less bad.

Oh, and by the way, you've made me feel old (I'm only 35) - I saw your '82' and thought, ah, poor thing, shouldn't be too harsh, he's probably still at school. Then had a look at your website, then at your myspace page, and thought - He's 25! Got to get used to people born in the 90's still being at school...

Nice pics on there by the way. Guessing the staircase is in Italy?

Dan

What, like this do you mean?




Every contribution is valuable, as I had to go and check that just to be sure - you might have been right!

Welcome to the forum, please don't let this slightly less than illustrious start put you off.

Dan

It's worth making sure that images on the web are sRGB colourspace rather than AdobeRGB, which can look a bit washed out and lacking in contrast (web browsers can't all read what the colours should display as, sRGB should be fine).

Dan

Have you been to Gigrin Farm in Wales, where they feed the Red Kites every day?

That's a challenge! I think about 1% of my shots were sharp enough.

Dan

Very sinister.

Dan

[quote="iceblinker"]Certainly not me. Bear in mind that with the Sigma the stranger distortion, where the image curves nearer the corner than in the middle, is gone by around 12mm, so like for like, as far as focal length is concerned, the Sigma could be said to have less distortion, plus the bonus of an extra 2mm of wideangleness to play with.

It's a lens I don't use a huge amount, but it would be the same if I'd bought the 12-24, so saving £300 was worthwhile for me.

Sharpness etc. with this lens is excellent, but I haven't tried the 12-24 to compare.

Dan

It is my favourite lens for macro work.

Dan

The Sigma 105mm EX is an excellent lens, and will work perfectly with your K10D. I use it a lot, often at f/2.8 for a very shallow depth of field (although the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 at macro distances wouldn't be great anyway).

Dan

Assuming you mean this one?

If I was going to bid, I would ask that the seller takes another photo of the adaptor, with less light shining on the element and a dark background. From this pic it looks a bit 'smoky', which I'm guessing could be fungus, or it might just be a smeary element? Could just be that pic though.

Also, the seller doesn't know his minimum from his maximum apertures...

Don't forget you'd also need an M42 adaptor.

Dan

Because they're deluded, or daft, or both.

Although, to be fair, the Canon tests were, I think, done on the 8mp 350D, so direct comparison with the K10D isn't quite as straightforward as it would be nice to think. The higher resolution of the sensor may well have a bearing on the results.

Dan