The FA 20-35 is a fine lens. I owned one at one time, but it became redundant so I sold it. Of course it's no substitute for its wider brethren. In 35 mm FOV it's 30mm at the wide end, while the DA 16-45 is 24mm -- a huge difference. But for wide zooms, the DA 12-24/ 4 is the clear winner. It's a better optic than all of the above and gives you a true wide FOV. It's also very manageable in that it doesn't extend much at either the wide or the long end. A superb lens. Paul On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:20 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> The DA18-55 never interested me as I didn't like its rendering > qualities very much and felt it was usually just a bit too slow for > my desires. I had the 16-45 for a bit ... it's a fine performer, the > weight and balance are a bit funky, as is the zoom operation. > > The zoom in this range that I really love is the FA20-35/4 AL. It's > sharpness, contrast and rendering are nearly prime-quality, it isn't > oversize, it's very light, and just does the trick beautifully. It > certainly doesn't have the feel or finish quality of a Limited prime, > but for a zoom the performance is right up there to deserve the title. > > Godfrey > > On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Paul wrote: > >> Just wondering if any one has compared the 16-45 to the 18-55, As an >> 18-55 came with my K10D, but i havent opened it yet as i was going to >> seel it on Ebay, but i dont really like the size of the 16-45 and am >> wondering if i should just keep the 18-55. I dont really use zooms a >> whole lot in this range, but its nice to have one up my sleeve. > > > -- > 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
