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
On Nov 9, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 9, 2008, at 16:46, 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.
If I had a 16-45 already, I wouldn't have moved up to the 16-50.
But from the 18-55, it's a big leap and worth the upgrade!
Someday... I look forward to getting its relative: the 50-135.
Then I can ditch a lot of my old stuff.
Just as soon as my youngest finishes college in 4 years. (sigh)
-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.
--
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.
