This is a repeat. Sorry. It was stuck in the buffer on my laptop.
Paul
On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:13 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The DA 12-24 is a superb lens. It would give you an expanded range.
The 16-45 is too close to the 20-35.
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
