Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Gianfranco queried: How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer. It handles fine. The zoom ring is quite large and easy. The focus ring seems fine to me. I don't have the FA 24-90 here, but my recollection is that the 24-90 may be smaller than the 16-45 at shortest length. I am not sure how they compare extended. They both have the extending barrel design, except that the 16-45 is shortest at its long end. The 16-45, anyway, is not a compact lens. I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that it is a constant f4.0. Joe
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
on 02.07.04 16:54, Gianfranco Irlanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys and gals, I'm in the mood to purchase a 16-45, but I'd like to hear some first hand experiences from those who own it and made a side by side comparison with at least one of the lenses above. I recall somebody said that the 16-45 is definitely sharper than the 24-90 at similar FL, is it true? I'm mainly interested in the performance wide open. Another thing: the Italian importer has no 16-45 readily available, but I've found a shop in Naples that has a couple of *ist D and, among several lenses, at least a 16-45. They ask 469 Euro for the lens alone. Is it good? As usual, many thanks in advance. Hi Giafranco, I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in this link (just use translator like babelfish): http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html Tests are fully independent and objective as they are made by... computer program - DXO Analyzer :-) In short 24-90 is quite sharp, but noticably worse at open apertures than DA 16-45 and FA has quite a big loss of sharpness in corners as compared to homogenous results from DA. DA suffers only from its chromatic aberrations in corners - they are quite noticable between 16-45mm. Otherwise they claim DA performance is similar to Nikkor DX 17-55/2.8 (~1400USD lens...). It is also worth looking at the tests of FA 43/1.9 limited, FA 35/2 and FA* 85/1.4 (on following page) and compare results. Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as the sharpest zooms I own -- the FA 20-35, the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8. One amazing thing about the lens is that it is quite good wide open. Pentax's own MTF evaluation is that the lens is actually best at f4.0 from 16 to 28 mm., and at f4.5 from 28 to 45 mm. That's extraordinary performance. It's also, of course, quite fine stopped down. I have shot it at f16 with very nice results. It goes well on the *ist D. There are occastional CA problems, but you will probably see these on many lenses. I have noticed it on only two shots out of several hundred. There is software to correct CA problems, and I would guess that more software (perhaps PS plug-ins) to correct this problem will be forthcoming. For *ist D zoom users, I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is one of the best zooms Pentax has made. The images it gives me are stunning. One is in this month's PUG (keep in mind that it is a reduced jpeg). For some reason Pentax is producing few of them, so if you want one grab the one you saw. They are hard to find. The price looked good, comparable to discount price here. Joe
RE: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
The 43 is widely known to be soft wide-open -That Guy -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90 Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Giafranco, Hi Sylwek, I don't have DA 16-45/4 yet, but you could be interested in this link (just use translator like babelfish): http://www.pictchallenge.com/BxuREV7.html Thanks!! I was looking for something of that kind too. And I'm even able to read French... :-) Tests are fully independent and objective as they are made by... computer program - DXO Analyzer :-) In short 24-90 is quite sharp, but noticably worse at open apertures than DA 16-45 and FA has quite a big loss of sharpness in corners as compared to homogenous results from DA. DA suffers only from its chromatic aberrations in corners - they are quite noticable between 16-45mm. Otherwise they claim DA performance is similar to Nikkor DX 17-55/2.8 (~1400USD lens...). Good. I guess there is almost no alternative. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gianfranco, the DA 16-45 is a fine lens. I have tested it formally against the excellent FA 20-35. It is definitely in that class, and perhaps just a bit sharper than the 20-35. I have used the FA 24-90 but have not formally tested it. My impression is that the DA 16-45 is in the same class as the sharpest zooms I own -- the FA 20-35, the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f2.8, and the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8. Hi Joe, I too own the 20-35 and the Sigma EX 70-200. If it is in the same league I'll buy the 16-45 as soon as I can. One amazing thing about the lens is that it is quite good wide open. Pentax's own MTF evaluation is that the lens is actually best at f4.0 from 16 to 28 mm., and at f4.5 from 28 to 45 mm. That's extraordinary performance. It's also, of course, quite fine stopped down. I have shot it at f16 with very nice results. I have found that the 24-90 is fine (in the centre, at least) wide open on the *ist D, although not extraordinary. The fact that it performs that well wide open is vry interesting, as I shot a lot wide open. It goes well on the *ist D. There are occastional CA problems, but you will probably see these on many lenses. I have noticed it on only two shots out of several hundred. There is software to correct CA problems, and I would guess that more software (perhaps PS plug-ins) to correct this problem will be forthcoming. That's good. How's the handling? On the shelf it looked quite big mounted on the *ist D. I read on the KMP (thanks Boz!) that it weighs almost the same as the 24-90, but it is a bit longer. For *ist D zoom users, I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is one of the best zooms Pentax has made. The images it gives me are stunning. One is in this month's PUG (keep in mind that it is a reduced jpeg). For some reason Pentax is producing few of them, so if you want one grab the one you saw. They are hard to find. The price looked good, comparable to discount price here. Surprisingly, I thought that the price was a bit high; the shop where I saw the lens yesterday has almost only grey market stuff (the people were a bit rude too: they refused to show me the lens if I wasn't going to buy it). In another shop (where I ordered the lens at first, before the importer told us it was not available yet) the price was 415 Euro with the Italian warranty. Tough decisions... Thanks again for the enablement... :-) Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
