I've owned both the 20-35 and the 16-45. Before going digital, the
20-35 was one of my favorite lenses. After going digital, I found that
as a wide angle lens it wasn't all that wide anymore. That doesn't mean
it's not a fantastic lens though. I used it a lot as a normal-ish lens,
and got great results.
Eventually I sold it to buy the 16-45. To me, the fact that the 16-45
offered approximately equal (fantastic) image quality along with a
broader zoom range offset the fact that the 16-45 is bigger and heavier,
and thus to me justified the purchase.
Others complain about the 16-45's size, and prefer the compactness of
the 20-35, even if its zoom range is a little more limited. Sometimes
when I see their arguments I start missing my 20-35. But not enough to
part with my 16-45 so as to buy a 20-35 again. ;)
Godfrey had exactly the opposite experience... started with the 16-45
and switched to the 20-35 because of its approximately equal performance
at a fraction of the size and weight, despite the narrower zoom range.
What does that tell you? The two lenses are both so good that people
have mixed feelings in choosing one over the other, perhaps.
Dave
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Jerry, I have the lens but I also have a dial-up connection. Sorry.
I have tested it on my *ist D against a brick wall at 20 mm., and at the
same time tested the DA 16-45 f4 at the same focal length. The two are
very close, but I would have to say that at 20 mm. the FA 20-35 is very
slightly sharper. The DA 16-45, as you probably know, is highly regarded.
When I first got the DA 16-45, what impressed me most about it was that
its performance was so close to the FA 20-35.
Joe
