You're probably right, John. I'm relying on my memory, which is a dangerous thing to do at my age :-). Seriously, 12-24 sounds more promising in terms of it being a high quality piece. It will probably be my next lens purchase. Paul
> That's wide enough for me, too. > (12-50? I thought it was a 12-24). > > The fact that this lens is soon to be released is the only > reason why I don't yet own the 16-45. > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:22:29PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The forthcoming Pentax DA 12-50 will give 18mm rectilinear angle of view on > the *istD(S). That's wide enough for anything I shoot. > > Paul > > > > > > > The problem I see is that there is still no real wide angle solution, > > > unless you go Canon. > > > > > > John Francis wrote: > > > > > > >On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:47:37PM +1000, Kevin Waterson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Has there been any more word on the MF Pentax 22Mp? > > > >>Is it just trial or is there a release date? > > > >> > > > >>Kind regards > > > >>Kevin > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >There is no MF 22Mp. There will be an 18Mp within the next > > > >twelve months (larger sensor than 35mm, smaller than 645), > > > >if current plans are followed. > > > >There may be a new low-end 35mm first, but the MF digital > > > >will come out before any follow-on to the *ist-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > A man's only as old as the woman he feels. > > > --Groucho Marx > > > >
