I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. Too many variables. I know my 16-45 is very good. Not as good as the 12-24 at 16mm, but I wouldn't expect it to be. On the other hand, it's excellent at 24mm or so. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> FWIW, I've been real pleased with the performance of the A50/1.4 on > the > istDS, and would probably feel the same for the FA version as well. A > 75mm/1.4 - so to speak - is very nice. Leica offered a 75/1.4 for the > Leica M - very spendy! I traded an old ME Super for the A lens. I > think I > got the better deal. > > However, Like Rob, I do think some of the newer DA lenses are over > rated, > at least the few that I tried. I'm not saying they're crap, but > they were > a little disappointing based on comments I read here and elsewhere. I > think my feelings about the 16-45 have been noted more than once. > I did > like the 14/2.8 that I tried, although I didn't have a chance to > really put > it through its paces and use it as much as the 16-45. I'd love to > try the > 12-24 and the new 21mm. > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Paul Stenquist > >> To add to this, I would bet you'll be seeing some very good DA primes >> down the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a >> 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for >> 35mm movie cameras, so it's not brain surgery. And Pentax hasn't >> forgotten how to make glass. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
