Dang. If the 16-45 is better than the 24/2, and the 24/2 is better than
the 24-90, then my 24-90, which is my mainstay for the *istD when I
travel light, is going to get re-thought. That also means I'm going to
have to add the 16-45 to my drool list. ;)
I was kind of ignoring the 16-45 for th
0) to the DA 16-45, but I could give it a try.
I don't have another zoom to compare it to. I had avoided zooms until
trying the DA 16-45.
Greg
>
> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 06:35:34 -0400
> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
what other lenses do you have to compare sharpness with? FWIW, i find my FA
24-90/3.5-4.5 that many people here rave about for sharpness is just
adequate, and i am sure that it is not a lot different from other instances
of this same lens. my opinion on the DA 16-45/4 is that it is sharper than
the
- Original Message -
From: "Tanya Mayer Photography"
Subject: RE: DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0
>
> Greg, I can't help you with the testing, but I thankyou for the
detailed
> information comparing the two lenses.
>
> However, I do have a question - how is it
Greg, I can't help you with the testing, but I thankyou for the detailed
information comparing the two lenses.
However, I do have a question - how is it that the DA 16-45 will work on
your film camera? I was under the understanding that it was only suited to
the *istD and any other possible digi
On 19 Jun 2004 at 20:20, Greg Lovern wrote:
> The DA 16-45 was really amazing. The first time I went through the
> pictures, I thought it was just as sharp wide open at f4 as at any other
> aperature. Then, on closer inspection, I saw that it was very slightly
> sharper at f8. It softened up notic
6 matches
Mail list logo
