31mm Ltd passed up for future DA* 16-50mm

Got a call from my supplier. The 31mm Ltd (Black) I had placed on order for Oshkosh has arrived. It's about six weeks later than I would have liked to have received it.

I would now rather spend the $950 on the DA* 16-50mm which covers more than 50% of my images.

We shall apparently be getting those at the end of September, just after my road trip.

I'd go for a lovely set of primes, I'm considering skipping the zooms and going for a 1-4 prime set. Think I get better pictures and am more creative with primes.

Want a DA*55 and DA*200 and something about 20mm and something else, 100 macro I guess.

I'd love the Limited lenses too.

I usually put together a zooms set-up and a primes set-up and while both get a decent amount of use I find decent quality zooms more useful in practice so I'd definitely go with the zoom first and then consider the prime at a later date.

My feeling is allso that when using a prime you are more or less forced to look more into the composition instead of just turning the zoom ring to make it fit...
A nice set of primes is a lot more expensive, that is the downside. I mainly use the 16-45 and the 50-200. Besides that I have a A50/1.7 and a Sigma 50mm macro lens. I would love to get my hands on a limited but the price is simply to high...

I got my 43mm Ltd on Ebay for £156.00. It's in perfect condition.

These are the least popular FA Ltd lenses, and can often be found for not too much money.

Everybody deserves at least one Ltd.

G

I have the lovely 31mm and I have no plans for replacing it with a zoom lens. The 31 LTD is among the best glass I´ve owned (and I was a Contax/Zeiss user back in the film days).

Primes "talk to me" in another way than a zoom and I really don´t know why.
But one thing is for sure; The best images in my albums are shot with primes.

// Mats

A zoom is a zoom is a zoom. Unless we're talking about the Pentax 24-90 (a zoom with a soul), I find primes to be special things. You see that in the handling, in use, and in their results. The 31mm is probably the very best of them. All.

My favourite lens ever, and one of the very few times hype showed substance behind it. (I'm hoping the 77mm does the same, since I'll be buying one soon).

I can't comment on the 16-50 since I don't have it. I'd love it to have the same "special something" that the 24-90 has, though (and a lot more build quality), and I'm not talking about sharpness.

Anyone who has both, has used both in the same situation, and can comment?
--
Flink

G bites his tongue.

Ah. That explains the earlier paragraph. I wouldn't dream of saying that either was BETTER than the other, but it's the 77mm that is my favourite lens of all time. It's slender and light, whilst the 31 is a bit of a lump.

I was enormously impressed by the 24-90, but I sold it in anticipation of getting the 16-50. I haven't used the latter enough yet to come to any firm conclusions, but if it's optically better than the 24-90, there's not a lot in it.

Of course, it's much better built, faster, has constant aperture, focusses superbly, covers a more useful range on digital, and is weather-proof. And it's very good optically. But so was the 24-90.

The fact is, that when a lens is as good as the 24-90, any improvement will be fairly small.

G

I sort of agree, although it's not the whole story. I own one of (if not the) best lenses ever made for a 35mm film camera - the FA* 85mm F1.4. I love it and it's my favourite lens, however I also have an AF 80-200 F2.8 zoom and while I don't love it quite as much as I do the 85mm prime I do use it a lot more often.

If I owned the 31mm prime and the 16-50mm F2.8 I'm absolutely certain I'd use the zoom far more often than the prime (especially given that particular prime isn't at a focal length I use all that often).

Haven't quite plucked up the courage to do that. I like the zoom range, and the optical quality of the 24-90 far too much
It's the 50-135 that's tempting me....
Matt

[quote="niblue"]Indeed. There are several lenses I like more than the 16-50, and I am sure that won't change. But I am equally sure the 16-50 will get more use than most, if not all, of them.

We're slaves to convenience.

G

Yes, if I have an photographic occasion where I don't want to miss a shot (or don't know what to expect), I'll definitely pick a zoom.

But if my baby girl is all dressed up and pretty, laughing away at every move we make, or my wife is like she is every day (irresistible) and we have a little time to spare, I just have to do a small photographic session. No zooms there, it's the 31mm and the 50mm who get the spot.

Funnily enough, when all I had was the 18-55, most of my pics where shot at exactly 31mm...

[quote="Flink"]The 18-55 is so soft at the edges at wider focal lengths I can't say I'm surprised...

If the performance of the 16-45 is similar to the old 28-70/2.8 FA, I will be sorely tempted for the convenience factor when the other half insists I travel light but generally I do have a preference for primes. I also have another consideration in that I still use the film bodies quite a lot so my priorities are probablt slightly different.

Kim