Hello Jerome, Some of it depends on usage. Obviously the 16-50 is much wider than the 24-70. The 70-200 is longer than the 50-135 but it is much bigger and heavier.
For me, at one point I had a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Tokina 80-200/2.8. This was primarily for wedding work, but I found that the Tamron was not wide enough and the Tokina was way too heavy to work quickly and for long periods of time handheld. So for me, the 16-50 and 50-135 make a much better set - wider and smaller/lighter. You may need to evaluate more on those terms. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 3, 2008, 4:01:50 AM, you wrote: JR> I'm trying to figure out if the new Pentax DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm lenses JR> are worthy replacements for my Sigma 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses. All four JR> lenses have a max. aperture of f2.8. All would be used on K10D bodies. JR> I've had the former two lenses for about 5 years now (since the MZ-S that JR> I no longer have) and am thinking that it's time to get something better JR> mated (?) with the digital bodies I own. JR> Experiences? Opinions? Thanks. -- 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.
