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
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
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 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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
