----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Robinson" Subject: Filling a gap in the lens lineup - suggestions?
> > I've always wanted something in an ultra-wide - most of the time when > I use the kit lens it's for that 18mm setting. So I'm thinking that > something like the Pentax 12-24 would be pretty good, leaving only a > small gap between the 24 on the Pentax and the 28 on the Tamron. > > But another line of thought is that the 16-50 f2.8 would be an awesome > lens to put on the K10D as it would give me something "all-around" and > weatherproof to boot. But I'm not sure how rah-rah WIDE 16mm is on > the 16-50. Plus it does overlap the Tamron by quite a bit. > > Size, weight, cost are about the same for each. > > Gosh, what would YOU do if you had to choose between these? Would it > be smarter to just get the venerable 16-45 (almost the same zoom range > as the 16-50 and about $300 cheaper)? How wide does a non-fisheye > 16mm lens look? And is it reasonable to think that a person could > use the 12-24 as a "walkaround" lens or is it just too-too wide for > "regular" photography? Well, you can never have too many lenses.... A non fish eye 16mm looks surprisingly like a 24mm on the 35mm film format. I love my 12-24, and was looking seriously at the 16-50 until I remembered that I have somethning like a eighteen lenses within it's range already. I think the 12-24 is rather wide for a general purpose lens, I find it is more of a specialty lens when I really just need something wider than the 14/2.8. The 16-50 would be the better walkaround lens and is still quite wide. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
