Thanks, for the suggestions, Igor. I think I missed this when it first arrived. Eric
> On May 12, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Igor PDML-StR <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eric, > > As Jack wrote, - 17-70/4 could be an option for you (if the price is > affordable) > I bought it as it gives me that reach to 70. > It is not the sharpest lens at the longer end, so, if I need 50-70 at the > best quality, I switch to 50-135/2.8. But it is reasonably good nevertheless. > I think it is still my most frequently used lens. > > Its angle of view on the APS-C is 79-23 degrees, while 16-45 is 83-35. > So, I think the amount you loose at the wide end is not _that_ big. > Both lenses have the same (relatively small, 11"/28cm) minimum focus distance. > > There is also Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 out there. I don't know much about it. > > > > Now, if you are considering a budget alternative to 20-40 - just a wide zoom, > I'd just point out that there were several Tokina AF lenses that were 19-35 > or 20-35). > Initially, it was in two flavors, the more expensive ATX Pro > (20-35/2.8), with better optics and he budget version 19-35/3.5-4.5. > It is still available on e-bay, and typically goes for $130-150: > http://goo.gl/srEiCB > I am also seeing 20-35/3.5-4.5. I suspect it is a later version of the 19-35. > > Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 was my first wide-angle lens, yet on the film body. It > is quite good, although not perfect. Of the con's, I remember that it was > prone to flaring in the direct light. > I still have it, but haven't used it for ages, so, I don't know how it works > on the modern bodies (I believe, I used it just a bit on *istDS without > complaints). > > I don't know why I am still holding to that lens, for now, my 17-70 covers > all what 19-35 can do... > > Igor > > > > On May 12, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Eric Weir wrote: >> >> Well, when isn't cost a consideration? I'll put it this way: I'd like to have >> a 20-40/2.8-4 limited but that's beyond my means. A 16-45/4 is much more >> affordable and I might go up to double KEH.s price for it if there was >> something that might be better for me, e.g., something as wide as the 16-45 >> but with a longer zoom range. >> >> It seems that my photography requires either that or a telephoto and not much >> in between. So I.m not especially interested in trying to accommodate all >> that in one lens. I just want a good wide-angle zoom. >> >> So, should it be the 16-45 or is there something else I should consider. >> >> Thanks, >> > > -- > 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA [email protected] "Imagining the other is a powerful antidote to fanaticism and hatred." - Amos Oz -- 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.
