On Fri, Jul 12, 2013, steve harley wrote: > on 2013-07-11 19:47 Aahz Maruch wrote >> >>Congrats! Why not keep the 16-50? > > i'm a little torn; i have the 16-45, which is good, if not great, > yet i rarely use it any more; that range is covered for me by a set > of small primes that are excellent and humble: A 50/1.7, FA 28/2.8 > and DA 15/4 (i usually carry only one or two); together these three > weigh less than the 16-50, but none of them is sealed > > that and i'd like to recoup part of the cost; but i'll use the lens a > bit first
The one thing about the 16-50 I really disliked (though possibly it was specific to that instance) was that the AF kept not working (and I mean that the motor wouldn't activate). Using AF-C seemed to help. > (i notice your email client turned my Unicode ellipsis into a question > mark) More precisely, my non-Unicode vim. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
