On Oct 25, 2007, at 8:44 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: > On Oct 25, 2007, at 9:55, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> Only thing I would nitpick >> about is that I think they should have put the zoom ring where the >> focus ring is and vice versa ... I keep finding myself grabbing the >> wrong one. >> > > Looking at the photos, it appears that zoom is the ring closest to > the body, and focus is out at the end of the lens. You'd really want > it the other way 'round?
Yes. At very least the width of the rings should be reversed. With modern cameras and lenses, one tends to use the zoom ring more than the focus ring, it should be the one that your hand and fingers naturally fall on. The 16-50 telescopes as it zooms ... you're holding the lens with your fingers on the zoom ring close to the body as the lens extends and changes the balance of the camera/lens package. I find that awkward. When I use the focusing ring, I've already set the focal length and am making critical focus adjustments, so the package will not change balance and I can deal with a narrower ring that's a little more awkward to get to. With the 50-135, the ring placement is the same but the lens neither telescopes nor shifts on zooming, and the zoom ring is at least double the width of the 16-50, so it feels much more natural in use. As I said, this is relatively nitpicky criticism of these lenses. I haven't taken the 50-135 out for a real spin yet but I plan to soon. It's the one of the two that appeals to me as an adjunct to my essential kit of primes. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
