Shel, we don't know yet how the DA 16-50 F2.8 will perform. To make such a lens at F2.8, though, probably involves compromises that F4 doesn't, or at least more compromise than an F4 lens. For comparative purposes, the only post I have seen (on dpreview some months ago) comparing the FA* 300 F4.5 to the FA* 300 F2.8, noted that the 300 F4.5 seemed a bit sharper.
I'll be surprised if the 16-50 renders better images than the 16-45. Of course, I could very well be wrong. Then there are the size and weight trade-offs, which may be enough to put me off from either of the F2.8 zooms that are forthcoming. In terms of sharpness and ability to resolve detail (my main criteria), the DA 16-45 seems to resolve on par with my best zoom lenses: the FA 20-35 F4, the Tokina AT-X AF 28-80 F2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 F2.8. By "on par" I mean that it strikes me as being in the same class as, for example, the FA 20-35. In my tests it is just slightly less sharp than the 20-35, but you have to go to Actual Pixels to detect it. If the focal length range of the 16-45 is right for you, then the only real alternative will probably be the DA 16-50 F2.8. I believe Sigma may have a couple of normal digital zooms that do F2.8, but I would stay away from them. So when might you be able to borrow a DA 16-50 F2.8 for some testing? When you do, please let us know the results. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
