Shel, back when I got the 16-45 I compared it to the K35/3.5, K28/3.5 and FA50/1.7. The primes won each time. This however just made me appreciate the primes more, not the zoom less. My D still has a zoom mounted most of the time, DA16-45, DA50-200 or FA24-90. This allows me to get far more snapshots of the dogs, cat, neighborhood kids, weather, etc. than having to take the time to change lenses or do with whatever prime is mounted at the time. In the case of the cloud photos I _selected_ the 16-45 just because it's the shortest rectilinear lens I own. It did a fine job. For most of my other "thought out" photos I almost always choose a prime. For the $200.00 I paid for the 16-45 it's one of the best deals I feel I've ever gotten on a lens. A set of 16,20,24,28,35,50 primes would have set one back a bundle compared to this. For a zoom I feel it's in a class with some of the best. Autofocus with over-ride, small, light. A joy to carry. Comparing it to top quality primes??? It'll lose. ;-)
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:21 AM > To: PDML > Subject: A Week With the DA 16-45 > > > 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
