DA* 16-50 at 16mm f2.8

Sorry - end of that idea.

Does it make the same noise if you switch it on with no lens attached?

Sorry Peter, my post should have read " but picture 2 has basic data"

It is only missing from some of them.

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).

Rare?

At that price it should be at least extinct.

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

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.

1, 3 and 5 for me. I must admit I am getting quite fond of ducks since I came back to photography. All the cast at Arundel WWT are quite obliging.