Re: DA 16-46
David, the announcement (last August or September) that the DA 16-45 would be forthcoming was one of the things that made me think seriously about the *ist D. Before that I was thinking that I would wait for a camera with a 24 x 36 mm. sensor. The DA 16-45 is a fine lens optically (in my limited tests, in the same class as the excellent FA 20-35, which I also have). The fact that it is a constant f4 indicates that Pentax intended it to be a serious lens. Unless you are a primes-only shooter, it is an excellent zoom lens to accompany the *ist D. For my use it makes the camera very versatile. I don't like the physical design (the barrel extends when zooming toward wide angle), but other than that I recommend it highly. Joe
RE: DA 16-46
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote: > I actually don't need all that much wide angle. My current widest lens is a > 50mm, which if fine for film, but may be a bit tight for digital. I know I > need something wider when I get the dslr, I just don't know what will fit my > needs best. I have considered buying a used fixed 35 or 24 to use as a > "standard". I have both of those lenses for my *ist D and think that they both work well. 35mm has a very similar field of view to 50mm on a 35mm camera, and 24mm has a very similar field of view to 35mm on a 35mm camera. I also have the 16-45/4. The 35/2 is much much smaller and two stops faster, so it is often the better lens to have. The 16-45/4 is much wider though, and sometimes that is necessary. On Saturday I was at a friend's birthday party. The first part of the party was a wine tasting at a local winery. The winery is in the basement of a house, and as you might expect it was very compact. At 16mm I could get a wide angle picture like this that somewhat showed the atmosphere of the party: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/peters-bday-31/reduced/IMGP2263.JPG (ISO 3200, f5.6, 1/60, 16mm) I couldn't have taken that shot with a 24mm or 35mm lens. On the other hand the composition isn't very good and with a tighter lens I might not have the back of someone's head in the left side of the frame. I was getting a little drunk at the time and mostly taking pictures at random. alex
Re: DA 16-46
I don't own an MZ-S, but presumably like the Z1-P it can set the aperture just as the *ist D can. Therefore it will "work" fully. As for the vignetting, you may well be right - I have only just got the lens, and haven't shot any film with it. John On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:29:19 -0800 (PST), alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, John Forbes wrote: Why won't it work on the MZ-S? It works on both the Z1-P and the SFX. It has no aperture ring, so it would only work in Tv or P modes. It also vingettes severly from 16-20mm and probably still somewhat up until 24-28mm (has anyone used this lens with film to see, or have we only looked through the viewfinder). alex -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
DA 16-46
>From: "David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I will be purchasing a *istD soon and was wondering if anyone has had any >experience yet with the DA 16-45. I know that it will not function well >on >my MZ-S so it would be just for the digital. My question is, is it worth >it >to buy this lens if it only works on the digital or would I be better off >with a lens that would work on both? I know this ultimately boils down >to >personal preference, I'm just asking for opinions. I don't think there is a lot of experience with the DA 16-46 as it is apparently just now reaching actual users. I'm curious how well it DOES work on the MZ-S. Apparently the Nikkor 12-24 is fine on film cameras from about 16 to 24mm, and it's also apparently a really good 24mm lens. The DA 16-46 may also have a useable focal-length range on film cameras. You'd be hard pressed to find anything else as wide unless you happen to have a 15/3.5 or are willing to go for something like the Sigma 15-30 (big, relatively expensive) or Tamron 17/3.5, or one of the third party 14/2.8s. Personally, I'd recommend against anything with a really big bulging front element (14s and 15s) as my experience is that they are very hard to protect from stray light causing flare and ghosting. There's the Sigma 12-24, which is big, slow, and expensive, and probably not yet availible in pentax K mount (?), but will also cover full frame. DJE
Re: DA 16-46
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, John Forbes wrote: > Why won't it work on the MZ-S? It works on both the Z1-P and the SFX. It has no aperture ring, so it would only work in Tv or P modes. It also vingettes severly from 16-20mm and probably still somewhat up until 24-28mm (has anyone used this lens with film to see, or have we only looked through the viewfinder). alex
Re: DA 16-46
Why won't it work on the MZ-S? It works on both the Z1-P and the SFX. John On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:25:35 -0800 (PST), alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote: I will be purchasing a *istD soon and was wondering if anyone has had any experience yet with the DA 16-45. I know that it will not function well on my MZ-S so it would be just for the digital. My question is, is it worth it to buy this lens if it only works on the digital or would I be better off with a lens that would work on both? I know this ultimately boils down to personal preference, I'm just asking for opinions. So far I'm a big fan of the 16-45/4. It is a little large, but it works very well. The manual override focus clutch is great. The zoom range is just about ideal. If you want wide angle zooms you really don't have many other choices from Pentax. The 18-35 exists, but is slower and also won't work with your MZ-S (no aperture ring). Since you can apply for the rebate I think that getting the lens is a no brainer. If you don't like it you can probably apply for the rebate and sell the lens slightly used for more than you paid. alex -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: DA 16-46
David Madsen schrieb: > > I will be purchasing a *istD soon and was wondering if anyone has had any > experience yet with the DA 16-45. I know that it will not function well on > my MZ-S so it would be just for the digital. My question is, is it worth it > to buy this lens if it only works on the digital or would I be better off > with a lens that would work on both? I know this ultimately boils down to > personal preference, I'm just asking for opinions. Hi David, when I was at the very point of your decision, I got myself the new Tamron XR[DI] 28-75 f/2,8 - which is a fine lens. I realised that for me constant f/2.8 on a zoom was more important than to have hefty wide-angle on a "walk-around lens". Because that's what a zoom is for me mainly, for "serious" work I still use my fixed focals. To have aperture ring and full image cirle is also fine, because I still use film! If the DA lenses where sooo much better by wide a margin, I'd consider buying a digital-only lens, but from the samples I had seen, it was a no-brainer to go for the Tamron - regarding picture qualtiy. The rest, as you say, boils down to personal preference ;-) All the best, Thomas
Re: DA 16-46
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote: > I will be purchasing a *istD soon and was wondering if anyone has had any > experience yet with the DA 16-45. I know that it will not function well on > my MZ-S so it would be just for the digital. My question is, is it worth it > to buy this lens if it only works on the digital or would I be better off > with a lens that would work on both? I know this ultimately boils down to > personal preference, I'm just asking for opinions. So far I'm a big fan of the 16-45/4. It is a little large, but it works very well. The manual override focus clutch is great. The zoom range is just about ideal. If you want wide angle zooms you really don't have many other choices from Pentax. The 18-35 exists, but is slower and also won't work with your MZ-S (no aperture ring). Since you can apply for the rebate I think that getting the lens is a no brainer. If you don't like it you can probably apply for the rebate and sell the lens slightly used for more than you paid. alex
DA 16-46
I will be purchasing a *istD soon and was wondering if anyone has had any experience yet with the DA 16-45. I know that it will not function well on my MZ-S so it would be just for the digital. My question is, is it worth it to buy this lens if it only works on the digital or would I be better off with a lens that would work on both? I know this ultimately boils down to personal preference, I'm just asking for opinions. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com
