Paul,
On 1/16/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't get by with such a tight FOV. I frequently have to shoot
> rooms and car interiors. 18 mm on APS can't handle that, but the DA
> 12-24 does it nicely.
> Paul
I most definitely agree with you. OTOH I don't think I ever
photog
I couldn't get by with such a tight FOV. I frequently have to shoot
rooms and car interiors. 18 mm on APS can't handle that, but the DA
12-24 does it nicely.
Paul
On Jan 16, 2007, at 12:28 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Diff'rent strokes indeed.
>
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>> I couple the DA14 wi
Diff'rent strokes indeed.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I couple the DA14 with the FA20-35 and DA21, Paul, so the wide field
> coverage is nicely covered for my uses. I love the DA14's field of
> view, but even with that I use the FA20-35 at 28-35mm much more than
> I use it at 20mm, and I use t
my two cents...
I have not compared like you are asking for but...
I do have the 18-55, which whenever I get a better lens I will most
likely keep as a backup. The cost of a new one from B&H is around
$100 US, plus almost everyone that buys a new camera will have one, so
I doubt that the effort
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 02:04:26AM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> The kit lens is relatively worthless, due to the number available.
> Put it on the shelf for the day you sell the camera.
I think it's a little better than that. I've got one as a stop-gap
until the DA* 16-50/f2.8 is available, b
Paul,
I bought a 18-55 from a list member and put it on the DS which my wife
is using. The package handles a lot 'smaller' than the K10D with the
16-45, and the results look just fine for a walk-about lens.
Regards, Bob S.
On 1/15/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> (
> I should clarify,
I don't own the 16-45 although I'm considering buying it but I own the
18-55 and I must say it is a very honest lens. Sure it is cheap slow
consumer zoom but it does its job more than well.
I use it with the 50-200 in my "every day" photos and I'm quite
satisfied with it. It is also very lightweig
I couple the DA14 with the FA20-35 and DA21, Paul, so the wide field
coverage is nicely covered for my uses. I love the DA14's field of
view, but even with that I use the FA20-35 at 28-35mm much more than
I use it at 20mm, and I use the DA21 a LOT. The FA20-35 nets nearly
prime quality perf
Thanks Brian.
Regards,
Paul
On 15/01/2007, at 8:41 PM, Brian Dunn wrote:
>
> My particular 16-45 is quite a bit sharper than the 18-55 at 28mm,
> and they
> are comparable in sharpness at 50mm. The 16-45 has noticably
> better contrast
> at either focal length.
>
> The 16-45 also has compa
My particular 16-45 is quite a bit sharper than the 18-55 at 28mm, and they
are comparable in sharpness at 50mm. The 16-45 has noticably better contrast
at either focal length.
The 16-45 also has comparable sharpness and better contrast than an M 28 f2.8
prime which I have here.
The 16-45 se
Hi,
(
I should clarify, i already own the 16-45 also and i own the 14mm and
have primes that cover this range, i think the difference between the
wide ends of the zooms wouldnt bother me that much.
I was more curious about the optical qualities of the 18-55 compared
to the 16-45, I'm really
The kit lens is relatively worthless, due to the number available.
Put it on the shelf for the day you sell the camera. If you already
own a wide lens, like the DA 14/2.8 or the A 15/3.5, you're probably
okay for the most part. if you don't, you may want to add the DA
12-24/4. If that's too
The FA 20-35 is a fine lens. I owned one at one time, but it became
redundant so I sold it. Of course it's no substitute for its wider
brethren. In 35 mm FOV it's 30mm at the wide end, while the DA 16-45
is 24mm -- a huge difference. But for wide zooms, the DA 12-24/ 4 is
the clear winner.
Hmmm...we've heard a similar question several times.
I have both of them now since I got the 18-55 with my K10D.
Things to think about:
16-45 is more like a 24-70 for film
18-55 is more like a 28-80 for film
So there is a noticeable difference between the 16 and 18mm on the
wide end. Also the 1
The DA18-55 never interested me as I didn't like its rendering
qualities very much and felt it was usually just a bit too slow for
my desires. I had the 16-45 for a bit ... it's a fine performer, the
weight and balance are a bit funky, as is the zoom operation.
The zoom in this range that I
You won't get much for the 18-55 on eBay. $80, I'd guess, but i
haven't checked the completed auctions.
Personally, I'd keep it. If you ever sell the K10D, having the kit
lens makes it easier and boosts the value. Also, having an
all-purpose zoom is nice on occaision. If you dont' use zooms in
Hi,
Just wondering if any one has compared the 16-45 to the 18-55, As an
18-55 came with my K10D, but i havent opened it yet as i was going to
seel it on Ebay, but i dont really like the size of the 16-45 and am
wondering if i should just keep the 18-55. I dont really use zooms a
whole lot in
Thanks Dario.
I will not be rushing out to get the superior, but not that much, 16-45.
If I can afford it the DA 12-24mm will be finding a happy home here.
The 18-55 has more CR at 18mm which is easy to correct in CS-RAW. This
improves the sharpness a bit too. The slight barrel distortion at 18
My comparison is based on what I see through the viewfinder when I fit
the two lenses in succession. I do not own the 18-55.
The DA18-55/3.5-5.6 always appears lower in contrast and darker then
the DA16-45/4. The 16-45 is easier to focus manually, even at 16mm
focal length.
Godfrey
Excellent, Thank you Dario, that is exactly what I was looking for.
Thanks again.
DaveK
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:14:14 +0100, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Has anyone actually done a side-by-side comparison of the 2 lenses? I
> > currently have the ki
Hi Dave,
You wrote:
Has anyone actually done a side-by-side comparison of the 2 lenses? I
currently have the kit 18-55 lens with my DS, but I'm wondering what
I'm missing (other than the obvious width), by not having the 16-45.
You're mainly missing the obvious width and something at edges (when st
I've read alot of comments/recommendations to go to the 16-45 rather
than the 18-55 over the past few months.
Has anyone actually done a side-by-side comparison of the 2 lenses? I
currently have the kit 18-55 lens with my DS, but I'm wondering what
I'm missing (other than the obvious width), by no
22 matches
Mail list logo
