Thanks Jim. I doubt that I'll keep both. Once I get the 16-50, the 16-45 will go straight to ebay. Paul On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Jim King wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:00:06 -0800 > >> Yes, we got at least another twelve inches of the white stuff, maybe >> more. Some people were pleased: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6794310 >> >> Shooting a lot with the DA 16-45/4. It's just a very versatile range >> of focal lengths for much of what I do. Of course, the DA 16-50/2.8 >> would be better still :-). One of these days. This was f5 @ 1/200, >> ISO 200. > > Well, I see that Grace is happy with the stuff; as for me, I could do > without it... > > Nice image! I agree that the DA16-45 and it's new big brother are > great for all-around shooting. Now that I have the DA*16-50 I'm > afraid that the DA16-45 languishes on my shelf, though. That extra > stop of aperture is so handy... > > Regards, Jim > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
