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 pdml...@komkon.org 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.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
So, should it be the 16-45 or is there something else I should consider.
I had a used copy of the 16-45, and I found it to be a very good
value, and I liked the 16mm wide end. But before too long, my copy
became decentered,
Thanks, Matthew. That’s very helpful.
On May 12, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
So, should it be the 16-45 or is there something else I should consider.
I had a used copy of the 16-45, and I
Thanks, Jack. That occurred to me. Don’t recall any comments about it here,
though. Appreciate your recommendation of the 16-45.
On May 12, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Maybe a DA17-70?
I can comfortably recommend the
DA16-45f/4.
J
Sent from my iPhone
I should add that if there is any way that you can swing it THE
ultrawide lens to get (IMHO) is the Sigma EX 10-20mm f4-5.6. It is
responsible for almost all of my favorite images. I got mine used for
$350 from a Craigslist seller and it is a good one. BH has it NEW
right now for little more than
The 16-45 is supposed to be pretty good, but if you're looking for the
closest analog to the 20-40, I'd reccomend the FA 20-35mm at least
optically, and zoom range, build quality is very good for a mostly
plastic lens, and at this time it's not all that sexy when compared to
the DA Limited, so
Maybe a DA17-70?
I can comfortably recommend the
DA16-45f/4.
J
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net 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
I like the constant aperture feature
of the DA16-45f/4.
J
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I should add that if there is any way that you can swing it THE
ultrawide lens to get (IMHO) is the Sigma EX 10-20mm f4-5.6. It is
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
On May 12, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion the Pentax DA 16-45mm is a good lens at a very
reasonable price. I'm not aware of anything else that goes as wide as
16mm for such a reasonable price. BH has several used one for as
little as $189.
I don't know about comparison reviews, as I've said the lens is mostly
plastic, good quality plastic, but plastic. It had already been
discontinued by the time the 16-45 had been released. Maybe it was a
problem of sample variation. The 20-35 I have is very sharp, shows
little signs of
Thanks, Peter. Two to think about. Didn’t find either at either KEH or BH. One
review written just after the 16-45 came out compared the FA 20-35 unfavorably
to the 16-45.
On May 12, 2015, at 1:19 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
The 16-45 is supposed to be pretty good, but
If price really is a consideration, I'd consider either the 18-55 kit
lens or the weather sealed 18-55 kit lens.
On 5/12/2015 8:26 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
Thanks, Peter. Two to think about. Didn’t find either at either KEH
or BH. One review written just after the 16-45 came out compared the
FA
Very interesting, and affordable. Even new. I take it from the images I’ve
seen, ultrawide is not yet fisheye. I like the fact that the Sigma 16-50 that
Belunt suggested has an internal focusing motor.
On May 12, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I should add that
I have both the Pentax 17-70 f4 and 16-45 f4.
Comparing the two lenses -
Sharpness: My 16-45 is noticeably sharper at f4 and slightly sharper at
f5.6 and beyond. The 17-70 is a little soft at f4 but improves when
stopped down. Both of my lenses seem to be consistently sharp through
their
Thanks, Jack. Yes, it is attractive.
On May 12, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I like the constant aperture feature
of the DA16-45f/4.
J
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I should add that if there
Thanks very much, Mark. Very helpful comparisons. I’m leaning toward the 16-45
at the moment. I checked prices but not reviews on the 16-85. It’s out of my
range price-wise.
On May 12, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Mark C pdml-m...@charter.net wrote:
I have both the Pentax 17-70 f4 and 16-45 f4.
On May 12, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Bulent Celasun bulent.cela...@gmail.com wrote:
Ignoring, for a moment, the price part
I must mention
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (HSM) lens
as possibly the best in its class.
No idea about its price though...
I will not be surprised if it is on the expensive side…
I have the FA 20-35 and used it still with film. I used it for a few
years with the *ist-D before getting the 18-55. It's an excellent lens -
very sharp with excellent color. I think it would be comparable to the
16-45. But - it is not so wide (20mm vs 16), has a pretty constrained
zoom range,
In my opinion the Pentax DA 16-45mm is a good lens at a very
reasonable price. I'm not aware of anything else that goes as wide as
16mm for such a reasonable price. BH has several used one for as
little as $189.
20 matches
Mail list logo
