Originally posted by Rondec It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA *16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses?
I think that the higher volume in the 16-50 thread might be because of the negative stuff that's been around and that people like me who think it's a great lens are trying to counteract the negative stuff. There's no question that the 50-135 is one of
the great lenses, and maybe people don't feel compelled as much to show it off.
That said ... I think my 50-135 has a few advantages (apart from the usual):
- the filter size is smaller, so they don't cost as much,
- it's bigger, so you get more chicks (size matters),
- the fact that it doesn't get longer when you zoom is pretty cool (no comment on size here, please),
- it has more of a 'wow' factor at family gatherings (getting chicks again),
- OK, it has something that I can't define that makes it a great lens.
Richard.