On 16/3/05, Butch Black, discombobulated, unleashed: >My general thought is if the 18-55 is not bad it might suffice for awhile, >as it only adds $100 over the body alone and I can use it with my Z-1p (if I >keep my Z-1p). But I'm used to the sharpness and contrast of my primes, so >if it's a dog am I better off putting the money towards a better lens? > >TIA for any thoughts on the matter.
I saw one on a friend's *ist Ds recently and although the zoom range is not bad, the lens itself was bollocks IMO. It was incredibly light (which means to me that it's full of plastic) and the aperture is not constant across the zoom range (darkened when I zoomed in). I have no idea what the optical quality is like, I dare say that others will chip in here. Personally I would save your money, or if you're not a 'wide' person, then how about a decent 28-70? I've still got my PK Tokina 28-70 - next time I'm around at my friend's I 'll see what it's like on the Ds. Hey don't listen to me, I'm a nutter. If you like primes, I can't see how you'll like the 18-55. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
