The 16-45mm is also constant aperture which makes studio flash so much simpler. (Well at the far ends of the aperture range that is).
Brian Walters wrote: >I know it's only 2 mm but I moved from the 18-55 to the 16-45 because of >them..... and because of constant praise from many on the list for the quality >of the 16-45. > >I have to say I haven't been disappointed but, then again, the 18-55 took good >photos too. So, if you don't need those extra 2 mm........ > > >Cheers > >Brian > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Brian Walters >Western Sydney Australia > > > > >Quoting J and K Messervy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>When my K10D finally arrives, I'm trying to decide which lens to >>get with >>it. >> >>My ist DL came with the Sigma 18-50, so the bar has been set pretty >>low. >> >>I gather the Pentax 18-55 is quite a bit better. >> >>My question is, is the Pentax 16-45 a big enough improvement over >>the 18-55 >>to warrent the extra $? >> >>What are the areas where improvement will be noticeable? >>Sharpness, colour, >>etc? >> >>James >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>PDML@pdml.net >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Get a spam free email account - Visit http://www.bluebottle.com > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
