Paul via phone
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Zos Xavius <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let's see. As a walk around lens this is ideal. Compared to the DA*16-50 its: > > Smaller > Lighter > Slower > Less Range > > Both have WR. > > Its f2.8 on its wide end and f4 at 40mm. From the samples I saw it > rendered very nicely. Much better than the 16-50. That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither . The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close range. For moderately small subjects like flowers or leaves I opt for it in place of my macro. > Out of focus areas > and the roll off are rather smooth and pleasing. I don't know what > minimum focus is, but I suspect its closer than the 16-50. I also have > a feeling this lens would look really nice on some extension tubes. > This looks like nearly a stack of primes and could replace having a > 21ltd, 35ltd, 40ltd with one lens. For a zoom like this, I rarely > shoot wide open, but it does look very usable there. Compared to the > Sigma 18-35, it has a slightly different range and is much slower. I > think they are both pretty sharp lenses, but I bet the limited > resolves more. The sigma is also HUGE, lacks SMC/HD coating, and > doesn't say pentax on the barrel. I know that if I wanted to shoot > some street, I'd want the much smaller lens. I only wish it were say > 16-40. The extra width would come in handy, but other than that this > covers a range that is very useful, at least for landscape and > outdoors shooters. I think it is way too expensive, but I have to > admit that I really want one and a 15 and 70 to go along with it. > > >> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 26/12/2013 5:54 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> >>> I'm curious, what is the appeal of the 20-40? Other than size, what >>> are the advantages of it over the 16-50? If the advantage is size, >>> how much smaller than the 16-50 is it? >> I'm really asking myself that question right now. Don't get me wrong, it's a >> gorgeous lens, and the short zoom range makes it like an extended range >> standard lens, it's sharp and has nice bokeh.. >> The problem is it's big, and at 2/3 of a pound, it isn't light, though it >> certainly isn't as heavy as it looks, and it's slow. >> OTOH, it say Pentax on the bezel and for me that is generally enough. I just >> turn off the rational part of my brain and let the bit that is attracted to >> shiny things make the important decisions. >> >> bill >> >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
