John Francis wrote: > The 16-45 is definitely a nice lens; I borrowed one for most of the > PDML meet in San Jose (thanks, Bruce!), and it went to the top of my > "want" list. But I'm waiting to see what the 18-50/f2.8 is like, > especially since I also want the 12-24 and/or the 10-17 fisheye to > give me a little more coverage at the wide end; with one of those > in the bag I wouldn't worry about the difference between 16 & 18.
Well, my opinion of the 16-45 is that it's just OK - I had one for about a month and was not impressed, although it's not at all a "bad" lens. Sharpness leaves a lot to be desired when working with subjects that contain a lot of fine detail. It's certainly fine for some portraits, certain types of landscapes, and car photos. It's down at the bottom of my want list, although I have recommended it to some people depending on their intended use of the lens and the size prints they expect to make. I'm looking forward to the 16-50/28 (it's not an 18-50 as you said, John). The greater speed interets me, and, at least from what I've heard, it's a somewhat sharper lens than the 16-45, but that's only been talk. I've not seen any good, direct comparisons between it and the 16-45 or any good primes. However, even if the 16-50 is only comparable to the 16-45, the extra stop would be of some interest. I hate viewing the world through slow lenses. It certainly makes manual focusing more difficult in some lighting situations. Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
