On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:39 AM, David J Brooks wrote: >> I've been using it for a few weeks. A very nice lens: solidly made >> and excellent IQ. It's a bit longer focal length range than I use on >> average and bulkier than I usually carry around for casual picture >> taking, but a fine addition to the kit. > > Thanks > > Some members of that other forum speak highly of it, but at the same > time a lot speak lowly of the 16-50 F2.8, so i thought i'd ask. > They seem to think the 50-135 is nice and sharp. > > I could use this lens, i think. Most of my equine shots are in the 135 > to 150 range anyway, so it might work out.
I have both of the DA* zooms on hand to work with. I like the 50-135 more than the 16-50 but primarily because I prefer the light and compact size of the 21 and 43 for the shorter focal length range, and I like using primes. The 16-50's image quality is very good, almost on par with the two primes, and if I have a situation where I need fast focal length flexibility or weather sealing it would certainly be on the camera immediately. What I like a lot about the 50-135 is that it is an internal focus/ internal zoom lens: once on the camera it is a fixed size and balance. The IF/IZ design limits its close focus to some degree and makes it a bit bulkier, but I greatly prefer the rigidity and balance of this kind of design over the telescoping designs. 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.
