Every 16-50 has t be tested for flatness of focus field. But good samples are superb. Paul On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
> > Hi All, > > I had a chance to compare these two Pentax 17-70/4 and 16-50/2.8 > in action. On two separate occasions, I used them to shoot dance > events with and without a flash, using K-7 and K-x. > My (very subjective conclusions): > > 1. 17-70 is much faster and much more accurate in automatic focusing. > 2. The image quality from 16-50 was lower than what I was expecting. > > So, I am not sure if that is because of the particular bad sample of > 16-50. There are other variable involved (focusing, low light or > P-TTL flash metering). > On another hand, I was very impressed by using 50-135/2.8 under the > same conditions. I am afraid I am sold on that lens. > > I found that 17-70 is also a very good performer. > I didn't see much of discussion about it on PDML (I might've missed it), > so I bought it "being in the dark", but I like it. It's a keeper, > and 16-50 goes back. > I wish it was 16-70, and an extra aperture step would be great, > but oh, well... > > (Important: For those considering 17-70, - keep in mind that it is > SDM-only and has no screw-driver AF; hence it is not compatible with > the older AF Pentax DSLRs for AF.) > > > Igor > > > -- > 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.
