I had pretty much made up my mind to wait for the new 24mm lens and
skip the 16-45/4. And I'm still a likely purchaser of the 14. But just
an hour or two ago I ran across a Sigma 17-35 EX 2.8-4 on ebay with a
buy it now price of $229. That's half of what B&H gets for it and about
half of what I'd have to pay for the Pentax 16-45. Plus, I can shoot
with it on my LX or MX. The lens appears to be getting good reviews and
I figure it is probably good enough to meet my wide angle needs for the
time being. (Mainly automobile interiors and of course the occasional
landscap. But I still have my K 24/3.5).
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Paul Stenquist
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Paul Stenquist
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Gianfranco Irlanda
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Paul Stenquist
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena William Robb
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Sylwester Pietrzyk
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Steve Desjardins
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Peter J. Alling
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Rob Studdert
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena Rob Studdert
- Re: *ist-D and the wide angle lens dilmena John Francis

