I was kind of ignoring the 16-45 for the time being because I didn't think the 16-24 range would be that missed if I carried a wide prime like a 20 along with the 24-90. I will have to rethink that practice.
Thanks for the info.
Cheers,
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Jun 2004 at 20:20, Greg Lovern wrote:
The DA 16-45 was really amazing. The first time I went through the pictures, I thought it was just as sharp wide open at f4 as at any other aperature. Then, on closer inspection, I saw that it was very slightly sharper at f8. It softened up noticeably (though not a lot) at f22. I was amazed at how sharp it was in the corners, even wide open. I didn't know a zoom could be this good, especially in this lens' price range.
Has anyone here compared the DA 16-45 to one of the better Pentax 28mm primes?
Another lister recently made some pictorial tests using the DA 16-45 against the FA*24/2 on a *ist D and the DA was better overall. Wide open the FA* had a slight advantage WRT absolute sharpness in the centre of the image however the CA and smearing towards the edges of the image the DA beat it hands down. I recently tested the FA*24/2 against the legendary FA24-90 and the FA*24/2 was much better in all respects than the 24-90 at 24mm. I think the DA 16-45 is a winner for partial frame digicam users.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
