Peter, If had the opportunity to purchase a K 18/3.5, I would jump on it. Every review I have read on this lens states it performs brilliantly. I believe it would also handle much better than a A 15/3.5.
Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez > > From: Peter Smekal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/12/11 Thu PM 12:34:36 CST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ultra-wide primes > > Thanks so far, > > what about the K 18/3.5? Is it the dark horse in the trio? > Peter > > > >Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> A 15/3.5 - Big, Expensive honker that rarely leaves the house or > >>> gets out of the case. Light loss at the corners wide open... > >> > >>> A 20/2.8 - In the camera bag with the LX and 2 Limited lenses (43 > >>> & 77). Smaller than it looks, and seriously wider than a 24mm > >>> (plus much smaller than the FA24/2.0). Very nice picture > >>> qualities. > >> > >>I basically only have to add an "Amen" to what Bob has said. The A > >>15/3.5 is a gorgeous (and amazingly) rectilinear ultra-wide, but > >>doesn't travel too often (only if I know I am going to need it for a > >>particular shot). On the other hand, the superb A 20/2.8 is almost > >>always in the travel bag - it's easily my most-used wide-angle. Both > >>lenses are among Pentax's finest lenses, I would say, but differ > >>considerably in portability. > > > >I'll second what Fred says except that I seem to carry my K15/3.5 around > >a lot more often. I'll often take the 15 plus the FA*24/2.0 and the > >FA*80-200/2.8 as a three lens kit. > > > >-- > >Mark Roberts > >Photography and writing > >www.robertstech.com > > > >
