Hi Herb, The only other lens I have in the DA 16-45's range is a Sigma P/KA 18/3.5, which I haven't found to be super sharp.
My sharpest pictures have been taken with my Pentax-F 50/1.7 and my Tamron 90/2.5. I'm not sure how meaningful it would be to compare them (especially the 90) to the DA 16-45, but I could give it a try. I don't have another zoom to compare it to. I had avoided zooms until trying the DA 16-45. Greg > > Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 06:35:34 -0400 > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > what other lenses do you have to compare sharpness with? FWIW, i find my > FA > 24-90/3.5-4.5 that many people here rave about for sharpness is just > adequate, and i am sure that it is not a lot different from other > instances > of this same lens. my opinion on the DA 16-45/4 is that it is sharper than > the 24-90 by a small amount. i haven't compared my FA* 24/2 yet. > > Herb.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Lovern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 11:20 PM > Subject: DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0 > > >> I was surprised to find that the DA 16-45 was sharper than the Kiron >> 28/2.0 at all aperatures -- a lot sharper. The DA 16-45 is so much >> better, >> I'm no longer interested in using the Kiron, especially since I can also >> use the DA 16-45 on my film camera, without vignetting, at the Kiron's >> focal length. I now plan to sell the Kiron on eBay whenever I can find >> the >> time.
