I see people complaining about the 16-50/2.8 on DPReview a lot too. But people there seem to complain about every insignificant thing all the time. If something does not perform precisely as they want or erroneously presumed it ought, then it's obviously faulty and you have to whine about it.
I have used just the one DA*16-50/2.8 lens that is being provided to me on loan. It seems to be a superb performer although I admit that I continue to prefer using the DA14, DA21 and FA43 in this focal length range instead. Fast wide-to-portrait-tele zooms are big and clumsy to me. I find the 21 and 43 to be my favorite people lenses, most of the time, and both work well in low light ... I'm not afraid to use ISO 800 or 1600 when needed. If I were shooting more event/photojourno type stuff, yes: the DA*16-50 would be on the camera more of the time. Even though I don't like the bulk of it. Most of my photos in these circumstances seem to float around a 35 to 40 mm focal length, or down in the 20-28 mm range, when using a zoom depending upon the specific circumstances of the event. Godfrey > David J Brooks wrote: >> Good points. I had considered the 1.5 crop, but loosely.:-) >> >> I thought about the 16-50 f2.8, but i get conflicting stories. Here >> most seem to like the lens. Over at Pentax forums, a lot seem to have >> problems with it. >> >>> To my mind, the 43mm is a bit tight for social event photography. >>> Group shots in limited space will be tough. Remember that's an >>> FOV comparable to about a 65mm lens in 35mm, nearly portrait >>> length. I think the 35/2 will serve you better. Before I'd spend >>> the money on a 43 limited, I'd ante up a bit more and get the >>> 16-50/2.8. That's the type of zoom most high-end wedding >>> photographers use for working a reception. It would be ideal for >>> your purposes here. -- 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.
