24-90 or 16-50
24,201 posts
Link
Posted 31/03/2009 - 12:55
It depends whether you are a wide angle or telephoto photographer by nature.
Personally I would take the 16-50mm (although in reality I would take the 16-45mm as it's much more compact) as the 24-90mm is a rather long lens for general use on digital. For me that is.
However, you know your photographic style better than we do.
Best regards, John
Personally I would take the 16-50mm (although in reality I would take the 16-45mm as it's much more compact) as the 24-90mm is a rather long lens for general use on digital. For me that is.
However, you know your photographic style better than we do.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 31/03/2009 - 12:55
That's a tricky one 
My personal fav is the SMC-DA 17-70 - which pretty much covers all angles. Certainly sharper than the already excellent 24-90, though the 17-70 does mysteriously underexpose quite a bit. Bokeh is on a par.
If it were just portraits then I'd say the 24-90 is probably more versatile - at least for head & shoulders shots (I tend to use around 70mm). But, if you have the 24-90 and need to do some indoor/outdoor architecture shots, then you could be stumped
But then with the 16-50 you can still get great portraits at 50mm - and you have the advantage of f/2.8 for very shallow DoF.
Sorry I can't help much more!!!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
My personal fav is the SMC-DA 17-70 - which pretty much covers all angles. Certainly sharper than the already excellent 24-90, though the 17-70 does mysteriously underexpose quite a bit. Bokeh is on a par.
If it were just portraits then I'd say the 24-90 is probably more versatile - at least for head & shoulders shots (I tend to use around 70mm). But, if you have the 24-90 and need to do some indoor/outdoor architecture shots, then you could be stumped
But then with the 16-50 you can still get great portraits at 50mm - and you have the advantage of f/2.8 for very shallow DoF.
Sorry I can't help much more!!!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Link
Posted 31/03/2009 - 23:09
The 24-90 was designed as a general purpose lens for 35mm film cameras. From an image-quality point of view, it's a great lens on digital, too, but it's no longer general purpose. Matt has always paired his with a 12-24, as I recall.
On digital, there are three choices: the 16-50, the 16-45, and the 17-70.
I have the 16-50, and it's a great lens, but for a one-lens holiday I would probably select the 17-70. The extra 20mm at the long end would be worth having.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
On digital, there are three choices: the 16-50, the 16-45, and the 17-70.
I have the 16-50, and it's a great lens, but for a one-lens holiday I would probably select the 17-70. The extra 20mm at the long end would be worth having.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Link
Posted 31/03/2009 - 23:18
If it is wide angle you want you may find the 24 a bit disappointing as it is not as wide as you may hope, I am looking for a wide end zoom and would be happy with say 14-30 but there isn't one so I am still thinking about it.
Jackie H
K7, K20D, istDS, Optio SV, ME
Most used glass
50mm f1.4, 60-250mm, 28-80mm,
Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro & Bertha 50-500
Jackie H
K7, K20D, istDS, Optio SV, ME
Most used glass
50mm f1.4, 60-250mm, 28-80mm,
Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro & Bertha 50-500
Link
Posted 31/03/2009 - 23:27
Thordell wrote:
If it is wide angle you want you may find the 24 a bit disappointing as it is not as wide as you may hope, I am looking for a wide end zoom and would be happy with say 14-30 but there isn't one so I am still thinking about it.
If it is wide angle you want you may find the 24 a bit disappointing as it is not as wide as you may hope, I am looking for a wide end zoom and would be happy with say 14-30 but there isn't one so I am still thinking about it.
Won't go wrong with a 12-24...
Joining the Q
68 posts
Link
Posted 31/03/2009 - 23:30
Having got my 16-60, it now turns out to be the lens that is on my K10D all the time, quite opposite to before where it was a 200mm on my KM.
I do lots of pet, wildlife (small) and landscape so the ability to get in real close with the 16mm and have 2.8 is a god send for handheld at 0.5 sec [with SR turned on].
The extra weight of the 16-50 is offset by its looks
Peter
Digital: K20D+D-BG2 Grip, K10D+D-BG2 Grip, DA* 300 F4, DA* 50-135 F2.8, DA* 16-50 F2.8, DA 17-70 F4, DA 50-200, FA 100-300, AF540FGZ, F Remote release
Analogue: KM, 200mm M,135mm M, K 2x Conv, 28-80mm A, 55mm M, 28mm M, Vivitar 283
Other: Sony PC Digicam,2x Conv,0.7x Sea&Sea wide conv,Sea&Sea Underwater housing, GreenForce 2 x 50W HID lights + double capacity battery, Fujitsu F31 and Underwater housing, Nikon 7900+Underwater Housing
I do lots of pet, wildlife (small) and landscape so the ability to get in real close with the 16mm and have 2.8 is a god send for handheld at 0.5 sec [with SR turned on].
The extra weight of the 16-50 is offset by its looks
Peter
Digital: K20D+D-BG2 Grip, K10D+D-BG2 Grip, DA* 300 F4, DA* 50-135 F2.8, DA* 16-50 F2.8, DA 17-70 F4, DA 50-200, FA 100-300, AF540FGZ, F Remote release
Analogue: KM, 200mm M,135mm M, K 2x Conv, 28-80mm A, 55mm M, 28mm M, Vivitar 283
Other: Sony PC Digicam,2x Conv,0.7x Sea&Sea wide conv,Sea&Sea Underwater housing, GreenForce 2 x 50W HID lights + double capacity battery, Fujitsu F31 and Underwater housing, Nikon 7900+Underwater Housing
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
polchraine
Member
LHR/ABZ INV/OSL/ZRH/LAX SNA/SEA/YUL +++
DA* 16-50 f2.8
Which is the better lens? Apart from the water resistant feature of the DA*.
I will only have space to take one lens with the camera (K20D) and will need to do some portraits, indoor shots and possibly some outdoor.
Trying to decide which one will be best - light levels will not be too much of a problem.
.
K20D, *istD, MZ-S, Super-A, ME Super, MX
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, DA* 300,
DA 50-200, FA 24-90, FA 20-35,
M 400-600, A 50 f1.4, A 28 f2.8, A 70-210, M 35-80, M 50 f1.7
A x2S teleconverter and a few others ...