Originally posted by Bigdomino If I got a 16-50 2.8 would I ever use my 18-135 again?
Steve
Well, I can't say for sure, but I used to think I'd want the 18-135 for trips someday. But that day never came. Ever since I got the DA*16-50, I just bring it if I need it.
But I still take only a prime into a museum. Remember that the DA*16-50 should typically be shot at f/3.5 or narrower. The DA35/2.4 can be shot at f/2.4, the F*24/2 can be shot at f/2.2, and the FA31/1.8 can be shot at f/1.8 (this is all assuming you don't want a noticeable drop in IQ on these lenses by getting too close to wide-open). Thus the DA35/2.4 becomes the better value, if it will work for you.
The DA*16-50 is a very good lens. I highly recommend it if you need a zoom. The ~16-50/2.8 is a difficult range to design for, since no one has perfected it yet (in contrast, you could say that all the major DSLR makers have perfected ~70-200/2.8 lenses). But the DA*16-50 is the best one available on Pentax, and it's very good. It's the one lens I now know I put off buying for far too long - I might have fewer primes in this range if I'd just bought it first.
I wouldn't discourage you from getting the DA*16-50 at all, for overall use. But it isn't even as well suited as the DA35/2.4 for photographing artwork in museums.
Last edited by DSims; 04-15-2014 at 06:17 PM.