On Tue, Jul 23, 2013, Bruce Walker wrote: > 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.
lensrentals.com has confirmed that I got the same instance February and May, so you're probably right. Completely agreed on the gorgeous glass, but having the AF fail to activate was bloody annoying (never consistent, either). lensrentals also said that they checked the lens after both rentals and found no problems (which I believe, having done tech support enough years myself...). Steve, the other advantage of the 16-50, of course, is that you're not having to switch lenses. On my cruise we were mostly using two bodies, one with 16-50 and the other with 60-250 (K-5 II/IIS). It was really lovely. -- 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.
