What to do in your situation.
a. You don't need a zoom for 35mm usage or you would already have one.
b. You don't want to waste money on poor quality lenses so avoid the 18-55.
c. If you don't care about really wide, go for the 16-45, 'tis a joy to have the wide zoom range, and you may find the wide view to be addictive.
d. If you might sometime want even wider, buy the 20-35 now, buy the 12-18 when it is available. This leaves you the option of using the 20-35 on your film cameras.
e. If you continue to prefer primes and were only considering the 18-55 because of its throw-away price, then get a 24mm so you can continue to keep at least as wide a view as you have on the 35mm bodies.
If it were me, I would choose option (d)
Stan
On Mar 16, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Butch Black wrote:
Hi Guys;
It looks like the tax return fairy will provide enough to allow the purchase of a ist-Ds. I am debating whether to get it with the Kit lens, or whether to get another lens later. My current kit 28, 35, 50, 100, 135, 200, 300, only the 300 is AF. I do not shoot wide angle often and am not a big wide angle fan. A 35mm lens on a film camera is usually wide enough for me.
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)
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?
TIA for any thoughts on the matter.
Butch
