I'm with Godfrey in regard to the FA 35/2. It's a must have that offers
incredible performance for the price. And, as he notes, those two extra stops
are essential for some situations. I do like the DA 16-45 as well, and use it a
great deal. Size isn't a factor for me, and the range and image quality of this
lens make it a clear winner. But I do feel a need to supplement it with at
least a couple of primes.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:21 AM, David Oswald wrote:
>
> > While on the topic of lenses, I have a love hate relationship with
> > my 16-45. I love it because it's so good that I don't get that
> > feeling of "I wish I had taken that shot with a prime." I hate it
> > because it is so good that I can't seem to justify buying standard
> > and wide primes within its zoom range. It is the only thing
> > standing between me and a 35mm f/2, a 20mm f/2.8, or a 14mm f/2.8.
>
> For me, the DA14/2.8 is a different order of beast at the wide
> end ... I find it a better performer than the 16-45 with nicer image
> rendering, and its better corrected as well.
>
> I wasn't happy with the bulk and weight of the 16-45 and replaced it
> with the FA20-35. Much lighter and more compact, even better
> performance from my testing (particularly on rendering). It replaces
> the 20-35mm range of primes almost entirely for me, but I also have
> the FA35/2 AL. Two stops more speed is worth it, and the FA35 is an
> incredibly high quality lens. It's nearly as good as the FA31/1.8 at
> one-third the price, and is smaller and lighter than either the FA31
> or the DA16-45 in the bargain. That was worth the price of
> admission. :-)
>
> Godfrey
>
