The size and bulk of the DA* 16-50 aren't an obstacle for me. When
shooting with a K20D with battery grip attached, it actually provides
better balance than smaller lenses. And while I don't have an FA 43
with which to compare it, I can say with certainty that its image
quality is better than that of the FA 35/2. Of course it autofocuses
quicker than any FA or DA lense.
Paul
On Mar 21, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
rationale:
The reason for my kit suggestion is that I intensely dislike
shooting with "wide-normal-portrait" zooms. I find their imaging
qualities and bulk get in my way a lot of the time.
The 16-50/2.8 is extremely bulky and very heavy compared to the DA21
and FA43. The two short primes and a body can fit in a very small
bag and covers 80-90% of my shooting needs.
However, in longer focal lengths, zooms provide a lot more options
than primes do, and the 50-135/2.8 provides remarkably similar
imaging quality to the FA77 such that even though it is bigger and
heavier, it's not that much more to carry with a lot more to offer.
I also find that if I carry more than three or four lenses, I'm
wasting my time trying to decide what to use. I lose picture
opportunities that way. And I hate carrying all that bulk. Three
lenses and a light tripod do MUCH more than five-six lenses for me.
In 2006, I carried the 21, 35 and 77. That was enough, but after
that I found I preferred the 43 over the 35, and with the 50-135
there are more possibilities for long views than with the 77 with
only a small penalty in weight and speed. I could have used the 14mm
occasionally, so it's an optional.
G
--
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.
