Another thought is that the FA24-90 AL is probably the right lens for
you if you are otherwise looking for a zoom that runs 35mm to a modest
tele.
Godfrey
On Mar 16, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mar 16, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Butch Black wrote:
My questions. How good/bad is the 18-55, especially in the sub 28
range? How is it on a film camera? How well do the 16-45 and 20-35
compare to each other and to the 20 and 24mm primes? (I know the
16-45 is digital only)
The 18-55 is a consumer quality lens. Slow (you're going to be at
f/4.5 or slower MOST of the time), lacks contrast wide open, etc. The
DA16-45 is well worth the extra money: much more contrasty, constant
f/4 aperture, nice OOF rendering.
Can't comment on the 20-35, the Pentax 20mm ... The 16-45 is right in
the ballpark with the Pentax-A 24/2.8, however.
My general thought is if the 18-55 is not bad it might suffice for
awhile, as it only adds $100 over the body alone and I can use it
with my Z-1p (if I keep my Z-1p). But I'm used to the sharpness and
contrast of my primes, so if it's a dog am I better off putting the
money towards a better lens?
The 18-55 is a DA lens, why would it be useable with the Z-1p?
Godfrey
