On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Aahz Maruch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
That was an issue with your instance. The 16-50 is a solid workhorse, and gorgeous glass. -- -bmw -- 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.
