Isn't that what I said? However, I added that the lens didn't quite reach my expectations based on list comments. I thought it might be closer to a good prime than it was in the situations described.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Don Sanderson > 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 > > 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
