Inet Shopper wrote: >> You can probably afford the 40 limited. It's very cheap (About 2/3rds >> the cost of a new FA 35/2 here in Canada) > >> The Sigma's not worth the money. The Tamron is, but the SMC-DA 16-45 f4 >> goes for similar (or less) cost and is a better option IMHO. The 18-55 >> is actually decent (unlike the mediocre kit lenses from Canon and Nikon). > >> -Adam > > Sorry, I just realized you meant the 40/2.8 Limited. It's tiny and not very > expensive, but if I got it I'd probably still want something faster for night > use. So I might as well omit it and save the money. > > Thanks for pointing out the 16-45/4. I'd wrongly assumed that it would be very > expensive, yet it's priced like the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. It looks like the > cheap > route would be the kit lens and a used manual focus 28/2 or 35/2, and the more > expensive route would be the 16-45/4 with the FA 35/2. > > I'm aware of the Vivitar/Kiron 28/2 lenses. In fact my 28/2 in FD mount is a > Kiron, and I like it very much. But Kirons in Pentax KA mount aren't cheap or > common either... > > Benjamin >
The 16-45 was rather expensive for quite a while, it was reduced in price significantly early this summer. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
