On 7 May 2013 02:12, Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I too looked at a ton of samples and didn't see one all that sharp at > all. Not even in the center. Its supposed to get decent figures in the > center, but the borders are pretty awful, and all the pictures I saw > confirmed that. If you did events and shot people, it would be more > than ok. For landscapes and walkaround its not for me. I finally got a > 16-45 and like it very much. Especially compared to the 18-55 mk 1 I > also have. I generally prefer primes, but the 12-24 and 16-45 I have > are both decent lenses. The 18-135 just doesn't do it for me. Now I > just need a 55-300 to complete my walk around zoom kit.....
It's probably not the best practice to provide opinions on a lens based solely by looking at technical reviews and real world image samples but, in the past, every time I have personally ignored such data it's been proven accurate when I finally made a purchase. Like you the 16-45 was my walk around (and only zoom lens) for some years, aside from the sometimes irritating yellow/blue CA it's a great lens and I produced many excellent images using it. I later bought the 18-55 WR as my go-to water resistant lens thinking it really couldn't be as poor as the samples I saw but it was, so I now have no WR lenses, way too much compromise in IQ for me. I only recently retired my DA16-45 and have replaced it with a late Sigma 17-50/2.8 which after 6 months of use has proved to be an excellent lens and great as a walk about. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
