On Mar 3, 2008, at 10:40, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I have the DA*16-50/2.8. It is a better balanced lens than the > DA16-45 and feels nicer in use. I still prefer using the 14, 21, 43 > mm primes in this range due to their smaller, handier size and > weight, but the 16-50 proves to be a fine performer and minimizes > lens changes when you're working with quickly changing circumstances. >
And I have to admit, I kind of like the idea of being outside in a drizzly situation or something and just being able to take out the camera and shoot something without (much) regard to the water coming down. How often I'd do that is debatable, but there is a sort of "neato" factor there. Thank you for the suggestions! > While there's something cool about ultra-ultra wide FoV, I find > practical application of such FoV to be fairly limited. When I > examine my lens use from 2007, whether with a zoom or a prime, I find > the greatest frequency of keepers in the range from 20-30 mm. > I tend to notice 28mm in a majority of shots, but I don't know if that's because it's what I like, or if it's because I've pulled the Tamron into its widest zoom and it just won't go any further. :-) -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org -- 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.
