PM sent for Metz flash.

Last year's lens price increases (massive in some cases) was the first step in this direction.

Too many album covers have horrible design and DST is a good example. What the designer did with this photo is execrable; I would fire whoever chose those typefaces, framing and so on.

I must say that Hypgnosis is good at getting that "zowie" effect. My faves from them would be "I, Robot", "Eve", "Wish You Were Here", "Animals", "Venus and Mars" (the whole package with poster and stickers), "Peter Gabriel 1978" and "Peter Gabriel 1980". Oh, and "Go 2". Whew! That is a lot!

Right up there with Peter Saville and 23 Envelope.

Oh dear, all my photo links have disappeared.

I blame drugs.

Though the ME F was the first auto-focus SLR, it was rather a failure. I believe that Pentax were slow to get a pro grade auto-focus camera to market. They were also slow into digital.

Wow. I would love to get deals like that but second-hand prices tend to be more like 70-80% of new... or even higher.

Tim:

Instead of finding exception with my tone, please try to consider the factual content of what I am saying. Is there anything about the image posted that would help one test a lens? I have already listed the shortcomings -- do you disagree? Is it not true that any lens in the world (give or take) could have managed the IQ of that shot?

I'm going to bow out of this thread since all I'm doing is repeating myself. And apparently causing offence where none was intended.

How is that obnoxious? It is a simple statement of fact. Everyone has different standards and if that shot is an example of his, then so be it.

My standard is that APS-C is (mostly) good enough, so long as I am using the best possible tools. Even though admittedly the cropped format is less capable than 35mm and less again than medium format. When I bought a medium format camera 645 was good enough for me even though it is poor compared to 6x7 or large format.

In each case I am making a compromise for a less capable (in terms of resolution at least) system. But I would not then stand up and claim that my limited capabilities were just as good as someone else's.

EDIT: Actually, to be honest, APS-C is in no way good enough for me, but it's all I can afford!

Neither did I say anything about "photographic art" -- please don't take me the wrong way. I was merely saying that it is not a suitable photo for evaluating a lens. You need a flat field from corner to corner and lots of detail (how else to evaluate sharpness?) plus natural light (or controlled studio light), lowest ISO and camera stabilised on a tripod. Even then it is very, very difficult to get right since the focal plane has to be exactly parallel to the subject, the lighting must be exactly even, etc.

Then one needs to process from RAW in a neutral fashion with no added processing and present 100% crops for examination.

This is why I said your shot was insufficient.

Personally I don't go around setting up such shots either, and can only evaluate a lens fully after a good deal of actual use. Until that time I trust proper tests and the consensus of users who are as strict as I am.

If this lens works for you, great! We all have different needs and standards. Cheap, small and normal are all good reasons for you to use it. But if you like the Sigma 30 in the corners I think you would be shocked and amazed by the DA16-45.