It's rare that f2.8 gives one too much depth of field. However, I do have an FA 50/1.4 if I need it. And unlike some of the older primes, the new zooms are actually sharp at 2.8. The DA* 16-50/2.8 is sharper at 50mm and 2.8 than is the FA 50/1.4. In terms of low light, high ISO performance makes 2.8 feasible almost anywhere. Paul
On Dec 22, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 12/22/2010 2:01 PM, paul stenquist wrote: >> I tend to agree. I used to carry around a case full of primes. There >> was some justification for that 30 years ago, because zooms were slow >> and inferior. But five or six years ago, I started to realize that no >> longer made sense. These days, I generally make do with three or four >> good zooms that cover everything from 12mm to 250mm. And the quality >> of my images doesn't suffer in the least. Paul > > Well, there are still cases when primes would be more useful. Say when f/2.8 > widest aperture of the zoom is not enough. But given the fact that I am worse > a photographer than my FA Limited lenses, I can shoot with Sigma EX fast zoom > and be happy. > > Boris > > -- > 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.
