Originally posted by normhead Always new information to ponder.
Because I sort of panned it myself, I always noticed when it's been discussed, and after years of paying attention I'm almost certain I should have picked it up when I could have. Sometimes you look for bias confirmation, and it's just not there.
Well... I think a lens can be better than its weakest link - if we are talking chains, sure, the weakest link determines the strength of the whole chain, but this isn't the case here.
To give an example - I quite like my HD DA 18-50mm f/4-5-6 DC WR RE. It's almost CA free, though I have seen it at the extreme corners. It's quite well corrected in almost every way, and the images are sharp, contrasty and nicely saturated from wide open. But when I look at pictures taken with the DA 16-45, they just look a little bit better. I'll keep using the 18-50 for convenience (hardly much bigger than my DA 21 when retracted - and it's lighter, WR, and DC), and I won't get a new DA 16-45 now that this one's "decentered unless straightened" (barrel wobble is so bad I have to hold the barrel straight to get sharp pictures at 16mm). I also have a DA*16-50 since last year as my larger normal zoom - better than the 16-45 but not by that much, and the 16-45 probably has the edge on corner sharpness.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 18-50 should be a better lens according to testing data, as its weakest link is better. But in the sum of it all, the 16-45 I think is a bit better.
My son - DA 16-45
DA 16-45, also on our cruise a couple years ago.
HD DA 18-50... certainly good enough for snaps at the beach.
Obviously I don't have any HD DA 16-85mm pictures...