Yes, I agree. I wouldn't use any zoom for truly critical work, unless I had to do so. There's one situation where I have to do so: shooting car interiors. For ultra-wide I have to use my DA 12-24, because it's all I have. However, since ultra wides are usually a little bit of a compromise anyway, it seems to be quite adequate. The 14/2.8 isn't quite wide enough for car interiors and may not be noticeably better. The 12-24 is perfect. Paul On Jun 24, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I think the gist of my review is that, based on the rave reviews and > positive comments people on the list have made, I was expecting better > quality. Anyway, it's just my experience and feelings about one sample > of > this lens ... a couple of other list members who have chosen not to > make > their feelings and test results public had similar experiences with the > lens, and told me so long before this little review was posted. > > I certainly consider it an acceptable all-around, walking around lens, > but > for critical work it'll stay in the bag. If I understand your comments > below, it seems that you agree with me. > > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Paul Stenquist > >> 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 > > > > -- > 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
