Lens Upgrade Choices


George Lazarette

Link Posted 27/03/2015 - 10:07
Garybaldbee wrote:
Thanks one and all for your comments and input. I think the 50-135 is a given for me. I'm interested in the number of people advocating the DA 16-50. I know that it's quality control problems are probably behind it but everything I've read suggests that optically it's little or no better than the Tamron 17-50 (I'm not too worried about weather sealing). I'm interested in the idea of the DA 15 to deal with the wide angle gap - especially with the current SRS deal!

One other question on some of the suggestions, would the DA 55 be likely to offer a significant improvement in IQ over the FA 50 1.7?

There are good reasons for the fact that people advocate the 16-50. Personally I would pay more heed to owners' opinions than to reviews.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

MattMatic

Link Posted 27/03/2015 - 10:20
I would second the DA*50-135. Best lens I have.
My reduced set is DA12-24, DA*16-50, and DA*50-135. Relatively tiny set but delivers the goods for me

(In that range I have/had 18-55, 18-55WR, DA16-45, DA17-70, and DA*16-50)

A very, very close second is the DA17-70. It's a superb lens, though not WR. I upgraded from that to the DA*16-50, but I'm hankering after the slightly longer reach for a walkabout lens. The DA*16-50 does have a certain "something". Under some circumstances it is a purple-fringing monster, but that all disappears when shooting RAW and using Lightroom lens correction profiles. Mine was calibrated and serviced by JPSS and was improved massively for that. Though, the SDM has occasional issues (think it's actually a sticky clutch rather than SDM - it frees off after use), and I can just about forgive it for that given the image output

Another benefit of the DA17-70 + DA*50-135 combo was they shared 67mm filters
The DA*16-50 is a massive 77mm, that's shared by the DA12-24.

The DA16-85 looks an interesting beast, but would've been more tempting if the aperture was a tad wider. But, having said that, I haven't owned one (yet!).

Just wish I had the health & energy & money (!) to warrant another DA17-70 and/or DA16-85

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 27/03/2015 - 10:22

George Lazarette

Link Posted 27/03/2015 - 11:25
I have the 17-70, and it's a nice range, but it doesn't compare with the 16-50 for IQ.

With the coming 135-format camera, I am wishing I hadn't sold my 24-90. Hopeless range on digital, but wonderful performance on the film cameras.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Last Edited by George Lazarette on 27/03/2015 - 11:25

LennyBloke

Link Posted 27/03/2015 - 11:45
I understand the enthusiasm for the DA*50-135 - I owned one and can testify to its quality - but it became redundant on the day I bought the DA*60-250 - it's as good as the 50-135 with significant extra range. The only negatives I can find for the DA*60-250 is the weight and the one-stop slower aperture, if you can live with those (I find neither an issue) then I wouldn't hesitate to buy (SRS deals ? ).

Paired with the DA*16-50 it's a great all-round kit - and you can sell everything else
LennyBloke
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.