18-55 vs 16-45?

[Boris Liberman]

Diff'rent strokes indeed.

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> 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? ;-)

For my wide angle needs I have FAJ 18-35/4-5.6 lens which I primarily 
use at 18 mm. It is smaller than 16-45 and it handles very nicely. I 
have a soft spot for zoom lenses that do no just extend from wide to 
long end but rather have a minimal size in the middle of their zoom 
range (for 18-35 it is about 24 mm). My very sample of exceptionally 
good optically, even wide open it produces quite nice pictures.

I admit that I might like 20-35/4 Godfrey has mentioned, but 18-35 does 
it very nicely for me.

Again, this is my warped mind and my own shooting habits.

Boris