The 12-24 is a very fine lens. I've used it for magazine spreads at
12mm, and the sharpness is excellent. It would extend your range by
considerably more than the 16-45. With your 20-35, you have most of
that range covered. The only downside of the 12-24 is the price. It's
in the neighborhood of $800 at B&H.
Paul
On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Jerome Reyes wrote:
Trusty Pentaxians,
To prepare for a trip, I find myself having to e-bay / replace my
16-45mm
lens. There's a scratch on the front element that shows up in photos
if I
close down past f8 or so.
With that in mind, I'm trying to take the opportunity to re-evaluate my
lens situation. In short, the question is: should I get a new 16-45 or
the
12-24mm? More specifically, my main question is how do the two compare
at
16mm? I'm not sure if any one can answer this besides Paul (he came up
on
just about every search in the archives), but any feedback will be
appreciated.
Other thoughts: Current lenses are 20-35, 24-70, 50, 70-200mm. Main
camera
is *ist-D.
How distorted is the 12-24mm at the wide end? I noticed that Paul
corrects
his shots in PS... but I don't own PS, so that won't be an option.
It'll
be used 70% of the time for landscapes / waterfalls. While the 12-24mm
is
nicely wide, I think I'll miss the versatility of the 16-45mm. The
other
option is getting a 14mm... but that's running a distant 3rd right now.
Just thinking aloud.
- Jerome
