Hello Shel, Since your findings seem to be a little different than mine and some others, one has to wonder if there is some sample to sample variation at work here. When I still owned my FA *24/2.0 (second one) I had poor luck with it relative to sharpness and detail. The biggest reason for it was to do family portraits with the *istD. When I got the DA 16-45, I did quite a bit of testing with the two and the zoom was much better than that particular prime. Again, this could be a good sample of the zoom and a poor sample of the prime. Hard to say. Anyway, I appreciate the report and your working with the lens.
-- Bruce Saturday, June 24, 2006, 9:21:00 AM, you wrote: SB> The DA 16-45 has been on the camera and in almost constant use for a little SB> more than week now. Overall, it's a pretty decent lens, but, imo, not SB> worthy of the praise it's received here. SB> It's fine for portraits, some landscapes and scenics, and even works nicely SB> with close-ups and macro shots. That's what a lot of people here seem to SB> use the lens for, at least based on pictures posted that have been made SB> with this lens. SB> However, it doesn't do well when asked to render fine detail. Compared to SB> an A50/1.4 or a K35/2.0, the DA 16-50 does not fare well. I was SB> disappointed in the results it produced here SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html SB> and here SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/hood_3096.jpg SB> In order to generate acceptable sharpness and detail these pics had to SB> receive quite a bit more sharpening than similar pics made with the prime SB> lenses I mentioned. Used with landscapes in which there was a lot of SB> detail was also disappointing. SB> I like the convenience of a zoom, and for certain types of photos the 16-45 SB> is a fine lens, but, IMO, you should choose your subjects carefully if you SB> want the best results. I'm not sure if I'd buy this lens unless the price SB> was ~very~ good. I am, nonetheless, looking forward to trying the SB> yet-to-be-released DA 16-50/2.8 The focal range suits a lot of the work I SB> do. Maybe the 16-50 will be sharper and better able to render fine detail SB> I like, and the extra stop of speed will be very much appreciated. SB> Shooting with f/4.0 just doesn't cut it for me in many instances. SB> Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
