The DA 16-45 has been on the camera and in almost constant use for a little more than week now. Overall, it's a pretty decent lens, but, imo, not worthy of the praise it's received here.
It's fine for portraits, some landscapes and scenics, and even works nicely with close-ups and macro shots. That's what a lot of people here seem to use the lens for, at least based on pictures posted that have been made with this lens. However, it doesn't do well when asked to render fine detail. Compared to an A50/1.4 or a K35/2.0, the DA 16-50 does not fare well. I was disappointed in the results it produced here http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html and here http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/hood_3096.jpg In order to generate acceptable sharpness and detail these pics had to receive quite a bit more sharpening than similar pics made with the prime lenses I mentioned. Used with landscapes in which there was a lot of detail was also disappointing. I like the convenience of a zoom, and for certain types of photos the 16-45 is a fine lens, but, IMO, you should choose your subjects carefully if you want the best results. I'm not sure if I'd buy this lens unless the price was ~very~ good. I am, nonetheless, looking forward to trying the yet-to-be-released DA 16-50/2.8 The focal range suits a lot of the work I do. Maybe the 16-50 will be sharper and better able to render fine detail I like, and the extra stop of speed will be very much appreciated. Shooting with f/4.0 just doesn't cut it for me in many instances. Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
