I think the 12-24 is a shade better than the 16-45 at 16. But that's
just a gut reaction. I haven't tested them. I shoot. I don't test.
Paul
On Apr 11, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Gonz wrote:
I have both and I think that they are comparable at 16mm. Myself and
another list member are conducting formal tests and should have a more
definitive answer hopefully soon.
Jerome Reyes wrote:
Trusty Pentaxians,
To prepare for a trip, I find myself having to e-bay / replace my
16-45mm
lens. There's a scratch on the front element that shows up in photos
if I
close down past f8 or so.
With that in mind, I'm trying to take the opportunity to re-evaluate
my
lens situation. In short, the question is: should I get a new 16-45
or the
12-24mm? More specifically, my main question is how do the two
compare at
16mm? I'm not sure if any one can answer this besides Paul (he came
up on
just about every search in the archives), but any feedback will be
appreciated.
Other thoughts: Current lenses are 20-35, 24-70, 50, 70-200mm. Main
camera
is *ist-D.
How distorted is the 12-24mm at the wide end? I noticed that Paul
corrects
his shots in PS... but I don't own PS, so that won't be an option.
It'll
be used 70% of the time for landscapes / waterfalls. While the
12-24mm is
nicely wide, I think I'll miss the versatility of the 16-45mm. The
other
option is getting a 14mm... but that's running a distant 3rd right
now.
Just thinking aloud.
- Jerome
--
Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I
was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger.
"...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that
camera man?
- Mitch Hedberg
