I find there's a time for zooms and a time for primes. For example, if I shoot an event, even if it's for publication, I'll do it with a couple of zooms. Constantly switching lenses can lead to too many missed shots. If I'm shooting in the studio, it's always primes. Outdoors, if I'm shooting something specific, such as a car or birds, I use only primes. But for all those times when a variety of shots and opportunities are in order, the zooms get the call. The DA 16-45 is certainly among the very best zooms available for Pentax cameras. Paul >> >>>> Hello Shel, >>>> >>>> Since your findings seem to be a little different than mine and some >>>> others, one has to wonder if there is some sample to sample >>>> variation >>>> at work here. When I still owned my FA *24/2.0 (second one) I had >>>> poor luck with it relative to sharpness and detail. The biggest >>>> reason for it was to do family portraits with the *istD. When I got >>>> the DA 16-45, I did quite a bit of testing with the two and the zoom >>>> was much better than that particular prime. Again, this could be a >>>> good sample of the zoom and a poor sample of the prime. Hard to >>>> say. >>>> Anyway, I appreciate the report and your working with the lens. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> Saturday, June 24, 2006, 9:21:00 AM, you wrote: >>>> >>>> SB> The DA 16-45 has been on the camera and in almost constant use >>>> for >>>> a little >>>> SB> more than week now. Overall, it's a pretty decent lens, but, >>>> imo, >>>> not >>>> SB> worthy of the praise it's received here. >>>> >>>> SB> It's fine for portraits, some landscapes and scenics, and even >>>> works nicely >>>> SB> with close-ups and macro shots. That's what a lot of people >>>> here >>>> seem to >>>> SB> use the lens for, at least based on pictures posted that have >>>> been >>>> made >>>> SB> with this lens. >>>> >>>> SB> However, it doesn't do well when asked to render fine detail. >>>> Compared to >>>> SB> an A50/1.4 or a K35/2.0, the DA 16-50 does not fare well. I was >>>> SB> disappointed in the results it produced here >>>> >>>> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html >>>> >>>> SB> and here >>>> >>>> SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/hood_3096.jpg >>>> >>>> SB> In order to generate acceptable sharpness and detail these pics >>>> had to >>>> SB> receive quite a bit more sharpening than similar pics made with >>>> the prime >>>> SB> lenses I mentioned. Used with landscapes in which there was a >>>> lot >>>> of >>>> SB> detail was also disappointing. >>>> >>>> SB> I like the convenience of a zoom, and for certain types of >>>> photos >>>> the 16-45 >>>> SB> is a fine lens, but, IMO, you should choose your subjects >>>> carefully if you >>>> SB> want the best results. I'm not sure if I'd buy this lens unless >>>> the price >>>> SB> was ~very~ good. I am, nonetheless, looking forward to trying >>>> the >>>> SB> yet-to-be-released DA 16-50/2.8 The focal range suits a lot of >>>> the work I >>>> SB> do. Maybe the 16-50 will be sharper and better able to render >>>> fine detail >>>> SB> I like, and the extra stop of speed will be very much >>>> appreciated. >>>> SB> Shooting with f/4.0 just doesn't cut it for me in many >>>> instances. >>>> >>>> >>>> SB> 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 >> > > > -- > 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
