On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:05:33PM -0600, Thomas Cakalic wrote: > Not arguing or being argumentative, but if one already has two zooms > that start at 18mm, then buying additional zooms that have a wide > limit of 1 or 2 mm more is not getting him much, maybe a little speed,
In theory, the 16-50 is a lot sharper than my 18-250, which is sharper than my 18-55. It's also about 2/3 stop faster (3.5 vs 2.8). > depending on the lens. However, if the intent in purchasing is to use > it mainly as a wide angle, then a fast prime makes more sense in my > book, but then I'm not spending the money. I do like "fast primes", and that's what I mostly shoot with. However until Boris mentioned the Sigma 20/1.8 I didn't know of much that was wider than 30 and faster than 2.8. >From what I hear, the 16-50 is as sharp as a prime, and apart from the sigma mentioned above, as fast as anything shorter than 30mm. The weather sealing is also a big plus. > > I hear "plenty fast" and things like that. How fast a lens is and > whether it's speed is satisfactory is dependent largely on shooting > conditions, is it not? I'd want the fastest lens > available/affordable, because just when you think your lense is fast > enough, it's not. If f/3.5 were fast enough at 18, I could get by with the 18-250, despite it's lack of sharpness, which isn't really that bad for a lot of work. But, I keep wanting something faster than it, especially for night photography. -- The first step is learning to take great photos, the second step is learning to throw away ones that are merely good. Larry Colen [email protected] http://www.red4est.com/lrc -- 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.
