All Forum Comments
Comment by MattMatic posted on Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 at 01/06/2007 - 15:48
niblue/Steve - I removed the trailing spaces in your URL and IMG lines. You had http://something/something.jpg (note the last space).
Comment by MattMatic posted on Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 at 01/06/2007 - 15:04
It's a carry-everywhere lens (unlike the f/2.8 lenses :shock
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 at 01/06/2007 - 11:37
Comment by MattMatic posted on Stubborn dust on k10D, any solutions? at 31/05/2007 - 14:40
The SR mechanism needs to know the actual focal length in order to effectively compensate for camera movement.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on SR with teleconverter at 31/05/2007 - 09:37
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Pentax k100d and k110d? at 08/06/2007 - 15:38
http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive/2006/06/02/615199.aspx
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=186
and http://www.grantgibson.co.uk/misc/readyboost/
Personally, I'd probably go with the 2Gb Sandisk Extreme III so I could use for either camera or Vista
HTH!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on SD versus SDHD at 29/05/2007 - 14:47
With the cost of a 133x Sandisk 2G at less than £18, it's a financial no-brainer as well
Just buy more cards...
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on SD versus SDHD at 29/05/2007 - 13:58
There are some faster ones coming out around now (think it was Sandisk Extreme and running at 50x).
I could dig out the spec...
No idea about Vista... I'm giving it a miss until SP1 arrives
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on SD versus SDHD at 29/05/2007 - 11:16


Please note that I'm not one to believe something must be good just because it cost a lot of money or because Photozone say it's good. I'm having doubts about the 16-45 I've just aquired. Will sell it if I think it's hardly any better than the 18-55 (which is what I'm finding so far).
I have both and use them (18-55 on *ist-Ds), and the 16-45 has the following differences:
* Slightly wider (like 24 vs 28mm on film)
* Contrast is better, IMHO. In difficult scenes the 16-45 shines (like straight into sun; wide dynamics etc)
* Sharpness is superb (but the 18-55 is very very good so it can be difficult to tell except at large sizes)
* Bokeh is nicer on the 16-45. The 16-45 has 8 aperture blades vs 6 on the 18-55.
* Unbelievable close focus at 16mm on the 16-45. Try taking portraits at 30cm. I haven't been able to match this whacky view
I would say the 16-45 is definitely a better lens. But depending on what you shoot and how hard you push things you may not see a marked difference
(And I reckon the same will probably go for the new 16-50/2.8 )
Matt