Originally posted by longbow That's interesting, the 20-40 is my least interesting lens right now
Maybe it's just because I've gotten a DA21, FA 31& 43 since I've got the 20-40, but the one that really put it on the shelf was the 16-85. Other than being light & small for a zoom, for me it's just lost it's shine. It's not a bad lens, it just doesn't do enough, well enough to choose it over these other lenses. It's been packaged back up and in closet for now, see if I miss it.
bdery: Agree, the DA16-85 is a exciting lens, it's been a big surprise how well it does.
This is interesting.
I have yet to see an image from 16-85 that will "wow" me. Based on a couple of available images, the 18-135 (I have one) seems to produce sharper, more contrasty, and subjectively better pictures. My 18-135 has been an outstanding lens as soon as I've understood its limitations. Granted, the 16-85 is relatively a new lens, so I may be using too small a sample.
On the other hand, I have been seeing impressive outputs from 20-40, but this lens has been hounded by criticisms of sample variability, especially with the earlier batch.