Diff'rent strokes indeed. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I couple the DA14 with the FA20-35 and DA21, Paul, so the wide field > coverage is nicely covered for my uses. I love the DA14's field of > view, but even with that I use the FA20-35 at 28-35mm much more than > I use it at 20mm, and I use the DA21 a LOT. The FA20-35 nets nearly > prime quality performance at 20, 24, 28 and 35 mm settings ... while > it's not much sharper or contrastier than the 16-45 at the same focal > length settings, I find the corner/edge performance wide open to be a > little better and the out of focus rendering quality to be superior. > > Handling is very important to me, however, due to some of the subject > matter that I like to shoot (people) so smaller and lighter is always > a plus. The 12-24 is even larger/bulkier than the DA14, which is my > largest, bulkiest lens, and that is one of the reasons I use it a > little less than I would otherwise. The only thing I miss with the > FA20-35 is the lack of Quickshift focusing ... but it's so contrasty > even wide open that manual focusing with it is a joy. > > Diff'rent strokes, eh? ;-)
For my wide angle needs I have FAJ 18-35/4-5.6 lens which I primarily use at 18 mm. It is smaller than 16-45 and it handles very nicely. I have a soft spot for zoom lenses that do no just extend from wide to long end but rather have a minimal size in the middle of their zoom range (for 18-35 it is about 24 mm). My very sample of exceptionally good optically, even wide open it produces quite nice pictures. I admit that I might like 20-35/4 Godfrey has mentioned, but 18-35 does it very nicely for me. Again, this is my warped mind and my own shooting habits. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
