I agree on the quality. It's not that light a lens, though. And many folks believe that the third iteration of the 28-105 (the one with the f/3.2 max aperture, IIRC) is slightly better.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:00:24AM -0500, Bob Sullivan wrote: > The original FA 28-105 f4-5.6 (the power zoom one for the PZ-1) > is a bit heavy, but an unknown sleeper - fine quality lens. > But you'd still need a 15mm prime. > Regards, Bob S. > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: > > on 2013-07-24 7:19 Zos Xavius wrote > >> > >> I have the 16-45, but the wobbly barrel is killing my corners > >> randomly. > > > > > > yeah it's an interesting compromise of a lens; i thought all the corners > > were soft > > > > but my point was that i had carried a zoom for a long time before almost > > completely switching to small primes for that range, so i have wieghed the > > benefits of not having to change lenses; if i kept the 16-50 it would > > probably be the WR that convinces me > > > >> I really wish > >> pentax had some better wide-normal zooms at a reasonable price. > > > > > > yeah and make it lighter than the combined weight of my three primes too! > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. -- 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.
