Sorry for putting words into your mouth. ...I just was trying to
summarize, and really meant to lend credance to your point of view. I
can't argue the size issue; the 20-35 is more pleasant to handle for
that reason, and that's why I miss it. The 16-45 fits in my small
camera bag along with a 50mm f/1.4, a 135mm f/2.8, or a 28-105 f/3.2-4.5
and an AF330FTZ... all without hoods except the 135 which has an
internal hood. So though it's a little heavier, I find it just about as
convenient.
My small bag is medium fanny-pack size.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:17 AM, David Oswald wrote:
What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people
have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps.
I have no mixed feelings about it. The 16-45 just didn't cut it for me
... I just about refused to carry it. The 20-35 is my most-used lens now.
20mm on the 16x24 format is generally as wide as I need (I'm at 24-28mm
most of the time...), but when I want wider I stick the DA14 on the
camera.
Godfrey
