DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50
Posted 07/06/2010 - 18:41
Link
Offertonhatter wrote:
I didn't want to mention the 16-45mm as Stefan wanted F2.8, but is indeed an excellent lens and hardly off my camera.
I quite agree. The 16-45mm is a very good lens indeed. It was unused in my photobag for a year. Last year I bought a DA17-70mm. The 1mm extra and the light weight of the DA16-45mm makes it a pleasure to use it. It's on my camera again and it will be there for a long time.
I didn't want to mention the 16-45mm as Stefan wanted F2.8, but is indeed an excellent lens and hardly off my camera.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
36 posts
17 years
Canadian Rocky Mountains
I have to say that although I really like my 16-50DA I am not very impressed with it at 16mm, the distortion is quite noticable, though this wont be a problem for you Stefan as you shoot RAW
I also find the focus is off with my K10D, I've not investigated whether its front or back as I have no intention of messing with the K10 body, but it works fine on the K20D without any adjustments so its not really a problem.
I did consider the Pentax 17-70 at the time as I thought the longer length would be a bit more versatile, and I found my 18-35 kit lens quite wide enough anyway so doubted I need the 16mm (though I have used it wide on occasion)
In the end "Nathan" (not seen him around for a while) convinced me the 16-50 was the way to go, I think the Weather sealing and larger aperture won over the extra focal length, and I was getting the 50-135DA anyway
K3, M 400/5.6, M 100/4 macro, DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA L 55-300
FA 24-90, 1.7X AFA, 1.4X-S
AF 540 FGZ flash