As a DA 16-45 owner, I should jump in. Before I got the lens, I was using a FA * 24/2.0 lens for family portraits. I wasn't overly happy with it, even though I had great success with it on film. It hide quite a bit of CA and just didn't seem as sharp on digital. After I got the 16-45, I did some tests which I had another PDML member look at and we both concluded that the 16-45 performed as well and sometimes better than the FA*24 at the 24mm setting. The advantages of the zoom range for me were a bigger plus so I ended up selling my FA*24.
So, am I satisfied...mostly. I have many images from this lens that have been quite good enough for what I was doing. It does the job I intend for it and is quite excellent as a zoom. Do I think there are better optics out there in a prime...yes. But at this time you would have to go to the K or M 24/2.8 to get it. I am very interested to see just how good the upcoming 16-50/2.8 lens is. I'm hoping it is of the image quality that the old FA* 28-70/2.8 is. So for the time being, I think the DA 16-45 is the best lens in the range that you can get for a reasonable price and having AF capabilities. HTH, Bruce Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 8:34:34 AM, you wrote: SB> No, it's not, but I'm in the minority on this list. There are only two SB> others here that I know of who feel similarly. SB> The issue about the hood can be easily corrected, and that may help with SB> the flare issues I encountered. Paul's pic is not a particularly good SB> example (IMO) of a flare-producing situation. SB> I suspect you'll find the lens to be acceptable .... but I can't gush over SB> it as some others have. SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: John Whittingham >> Not exactly a glowing recommendation Shel. The trouble is it's difficult SB> to >> find a lens in this FL range that doesn't have some kind of issues with SB> it, >> be it Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc, prime or zoom. Now SB> if >> the Tamron 17-35 XR Di were a bit wider at the short end I might well be >> tempted. >> >> John >> >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >> From: "Shel Belinkoff" >> > While I liked the lens, and found it to be a nice "walking around" >> > lens, I wasn't quite satisfied with it for critical work and fine >> > details. The standard hood is, imo, inadequate, and the lens is >> > prone to flare and purple fringing in some situations. I actually >> > used two samples, one briefly and another for more than a month, got >> > the fringing with both of them. I didn't like the way it >> > "tromboned" but soon learned to accept that aspect of it. Overall, >> > I think it's fine for most work, but it would not be my first >> > choice for a lot of photography that I do. I'd consider buying one >> > if the price were right now that I know its limitations, strengths, and >> > weaknesses. On a scale of 100 I'd rate it about 80. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
