I started doing some resolution tests and CA tests on the 12-24, but haven't had time to finish them

My initial findings at f4 are that the 12-24 is sharper than the 24-90, but not quite as sharp as the 16-45. If you're wondering, f4 was the MTF for both the 12-24 and 16-45, but I need to test at other f-stops too.

There was definitely more CA in the 12-24 at 18mm compared to the 16-45 at 16mm. However, it looks controllable, and I'm trying to map it out for Panotools and get you some half-decent coefficients. The coefficients for the 16-45 are already available in the PTLens profiles (which are just text files. Hint hint).

Just to whet your appetite though for this still amazing piece of glass, check this out http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=451621 (Shameless plug) If you are an ePhotozine member, do take a look at the larger size

I'll be back with some more samples after the weekend
Matt

Dan,
First of all, the 16-45 is a stonkingly good lens. I've had my best shots from this lens. It's been beautiful for landscapes. The 12-24 has a lot to live up to compared to the 16-45!!

With the "Pick Up" option - that seems a bit of a mis-translation. That was the option I used, and it implies "Pick Up from TechnikDirekt by a courier". That was €22. Like you I was nervous at first, but it all worked out in the end!! Total price was around £460 (will check when I get my card bill in)

I've tried the Sigma 10-20 on a Canon 20D. It's a monster compared to the Pentax 12-24 which is surprisingly compact (even though it has 77mm filters). The petal hood is huge though!

I've had a quick read up about CA, and Panotools will be my correction of choice (so that I can still use Capture One). I've read some scary tutorials about calculating the a,b,c,d values for Panotools - but I will try and find time to suss it all out
I may be first up with CS and CS2 values just to get you in the right ballpark at the 12mm end.

First look at a couple of samples - the resolution looks a winner!
I'll keep you posted...
Matt

Well, I took the plunge and ordered the 12-24mm from www.TechnikDirekt.de
Couldn't believe it - ordered it on Wednesday, shipped on Thursday, and arrived this morning (Monday) before 9am. Pretty sure it wasn't Parcelfarce too - I was so stunned the only thing I noticed was the green uniform.

Have noticed there's some CA on the lens (easily corrected in Adobe Camera RAW), but will do some more in depth tests and comparisons with the 16-45mm later.

Matt

I'd already said that Arthur Stated as option (1)
It's a good one, especially if you INVERT the layer after running high pass - it smooths instead
Matt

For Elements, a good way of getting some sharpness is one of the following methods:

1. Duplicate the background onto a new layer. Run "High Pass" filter (found in Filter / Other) - set the radius so you can see the details only. Desaturate. Set layer's blend mode to "Soft Light", and adjust layer opacity to suit. (This is called "High Pass Sharpening"

2. Duplicate the background onto a new layer. Run "Unsharp Mask". Pick a threshold of 0, an amount of 100 to 150% and a radius of something like 0.5 to 1.1. Set the layer blend mode to "Luminosity" and adjust the layer opacity to suit.

Both these methods have slightly different results, but they're a good start to boosting some of the detail in an image. The advantage of having the sharpening on a layer is two fold: (1) you can hide the layer to compare the difference, (2) you can erase parts of the layer to prevent sharpening in those regions.

It's also well worth looking at Richard Lynch's books "Hidden Elements". There's plenty of interesting stuff if you're adventurous. www.hiddenelements.com

Hope that helps
Matt

Unfortunately the Sharpen-O-Matic will only work with Photoshop. Elements doesn't have the inherent ability to split and work on the channels seperately. It's quite a long winded approach to do manually and requires Photoshop actions too.

Working with RAW with Capture One I have printed up to 20x16" at 402dpi and the results are, if I do say so myself, amazing. I've printed images taken with both the 16-45 and the SMC-FA 24-90 to that size, and am sure I could comfortably take them larger still.

Matt

Just to add to Liam's comment...
The RAW image is always soft-ish (it's largely down to the Bayer matrix filter). It does depend on the RAW convertor, and I think I've tried them all, but I get the best results from not sharpening in the convertor at all, and then doing the work in Photoshop (my Sharpen-O-Matic technique seems to come up trumps with most images).

The lens does make a difference, of course, but most of the Pentax lenses are fine pieces of glass. It's not just sharpness that makes Pentax lenses unique - the whole set of contrast, flare control, bokeh, colour.

Regarding colour casts - if you shoot RAW, then there are a few areas that can be improved on. First of all it's important to get an accurate white balance reading. I bought an Expodisc last year, and although expensive, I have been very pleased with the results! You can get a reasonable white balance reading off a white sheet of A4 paper, especially in flat lighting conditions.
Within the RAW convertor you should always tackle the white balance first before adjusting exposure. And if you adjust exposure significantly, then go back and revisit the white balance settings. (Check out the Capture One guide I posted here - it'll give some insights even if you don't use C1.)

Hope that helps!
Matt

Still £150... but it's 3.3kg
Wish I had a use for it
Matt

Now that was a bargain Brian
(But I did pip you to the SF7 & SMC-F 50/1.4 - sorry )
Matt

Perhaps we're getting confused with the model numbers!
The *ist-DS2 is already out and available in places like Japan. This is a modified *ist-DS.

The new model, the one that "replaces" the *ist-D professional grade DSLR, has details yet to be confirmed.

However, I agree - use a tripod/monopod. I would much rather it didn't have gimmicks or extra stuff to go wrong. Personally I would rather have smoother dynamic range and a touch less noise than image stabilisation.

Matt