Oh, I still *want* the 16-45. But it's just not at #1 on the list anymore (especially since I do have the Sigma 21-35, which got an outing last night when we went to see the Black brothers; it did quite well, although I'd have liked to have my choice of AF points).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused: > I already have the 16-45, but I'm still going to want the 12-24. It's a lot > wider on the small end, and the range is so different, that it's not at all > redundant. It will be the lens for those times when only wide is needed. The > 16-45, on the other hand, provides everything from moderately wide to > portrait lens fov. > Paul > > > > Joseph Tainter mused: > > > > > > Picture here: > > > > > > http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_2831.html > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > This photo looks pretty fishy: no distance scale, no markings for focal > > > length, no lens name. Maybe the actual thing is a ways off and this is > > > just a mock-up in styrofoam. > > > > > > I think you'll find that's a FA-J 18-55. > > > > > > There is some speculation on the dpreview forums that this lens is > > a variant of the Tokina 12-24 (presumably with Pentax SMC add-ons). > > > > We'll see. In any case, I think the 16-45 might have just slipped > > off the No. 1 spot on my most wanted list. > > > > >
