18-55 vs 16-45?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I couple the DA14 with the FA20-35 and DA21, Paul, so the wide field  
coverage is nicely covered for my uses. I love the DA14's field of  
view, but even with that I use the FA20-35 at 28-35mm much more than  
I use it at 20mm, and I use the DA21 a LOT. The FA20-35 nets nearly  
prime quality performance at 20, 24, 28 and 35 mm settings ... while  
it's not much sharper or contrastier than the 16-45 at the same focal  
length settings, I find the corner/edge performance wide open to be a  
little better and the out of focus rendering quality to be superior.

Handling is very important to me, however, due to some of the subject  
matter that I like to shoot (people) so smaller and lighter is always  
a plus. The 12-24 is even larger/bulkier than the DA14, which is my  
largest, bulkiest lens, and that is one of the reasons I use it a  
little less than I would otherwise. The only thing I miss with the  
FA20-35 is the lack of Quickshift focusing ... but it's so contrasty  
even wide open that manual focusing with it is a joy.

Diff'rent strokes, eh? ;-)

Godfrey

On Jan 14, 2007, at 11:13 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

>
> The FA 20-35 is a fine lens. I owned one at one time, but it became
> redundant so I sold it. Of course it's no substitute for its wider
> brethren. In 35 mm FOV it's 30mm at the wide end, while the DA 16-45
> is 24mm -- a huge difference. But for wide zooms, the DA 12-24/ 4 is
> the clear winner. It's a better optic than all of the above and gives
> you a true wide FOV. It's also very manageable in that it doesn't
> extend much at either the wide or the long end. A superb lens.