From: "PN Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I had the 16-45/4, but I went for the 16-50/2.8 to get the extra stop. I'm
glad I did. It has proved to be a big advantage for low light wedding
photography, and it's better overall. Much better autofocus as well.
Paul
David J Brooks wrote:
i know some here have a good one, but it still seems to have a lot of
problems all be it from the doom and gloom forum, but my 16-45 does a
fine job so i'll stay with this for a while.
I know you guys are talking about the wide DA* lens, which I don't own, but
I did want to echo Paul's point about better autofocus for the DA* lens
line. I have the DA 16-45, which is my primary wide zoom (makes me giggle
to say this: I only own 4 lenses). I have the long DA* lens, &, in terms
of autofocus speed and accuracy I'd say the DA* lens consistantly
outperforms the DA 16-45 zoom--& DA* lens does a better job in low light AF.
Still, the DA 16-45 is serving me well. I use it a lot on my construction
project; I'm glad I bought it. For the money, it's excellent, though f4 is
slow. I'd love f2.8, but all have to wait for the DA* wide zoom for that.
Has anyone tried the DA* 55 f1.4? Now there's a lens I'd like to try. I'd
love to replace my FA 50 f1.4 with this lens--assuming the DA* focus speed &
sharpness have been maintained in this new lens. Course it's really pricey.
Gosh! What is it: $800. Yikes. I'll have to save up for that :-)
Anyway, if someone has this lens, I'd love to hear from you & see pics.
Cheers, Christine
--
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.
