[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I love the DA 16-45. It's as sharp as a decent prime and has a high quality
feel. It's among my most used lenses. I have no experience with either of the
other two lenses you mention.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: dick graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How good is the DA 16-45 lens? Is it worth the extra $ purchasing this
over the 18-55 or would the FA 24-90 be a better choice?
You can count me as another vote for the 16-45. I've owned mine for
about 10 months now. I cannot say it's my most used lens... that
description changes based on what type of photography I'm doing. It's
by far my most used zoom though. On vacation, the 16-45 is practically
the only lens I use -- a streak only occasionally interrupted by a few
shots with the 28-105 f/3.2-4.5. My 80-320 usually stays home. It also
happens that the 16-45 my only true wide-angle lens as well; a task for
which it is well suited. You know how with some lenses you take a shot
and think, "I wish I had taken that with a better lens."? Well, I never
feel that way with the 16-45. I never wish I had taken the shot with a
prime, for example. I guess I can sum it up by saying that it's a lens
I can feel confident about, knowing it's giving me great quality images,
nothing less.
Now when I'm just walking around taking pictures; kind of focusing more
on photography as an art, I find that I prefer shooting with a prime.
But that's not because my primes capture better images. No, it's
because I feel that picking a single focal length and sticking with it
all day (as much as possible) encourages me to pay more attention to
composition, and I tend to get more interesting pictures when I stick
with a single focal length for awhile. Personal preference, I suppose.
As for the other lenses you mentioned, the FA24-90 is also a great lens.
If you don't have another wider-angle lens, may not be as wide as you
find yourself wanting. I would consider it a good companion to the
12-24 lens, or the 14mm prime. But in a kit like mine where I don't
have another true wide, the 16-45 makes more sense.
The 18-55 is ok for what it's supposed to be; an inexpensive
introductory lens. Many people will buy an *ist-DS with the "kit" lens,
and never acquire anything else. That's fine. It's better than the
lenses found on point and shoot cameras, that's for sure. But if you're
into this hobby, you'll outgrow it fast.
Dave
