The next lens??

res3567 · 04-20-2009, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

I think any lens at 16mm has distortion. I found that DxO Pro very nicely took all the distortion away, so I added that to my arsenal. It also does the same for the Pentax DA 12-24, 50-135 and 50 macro. They may have added other lenses, but I don't have them.

What about the 16-45? What you have heard or read?

Recercare · 04-21-2009, 01:28 AM

Why are you considering a new lens ?
Is it just LBA or are you unhappy with the ones you have?

Kind regards
.lars

**Canada_Rockies** · 04-21-2009, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by res3567

What about the 16-45? What you have heard or read?

Everything I have heard about the 16-45 is that it is an excellent lens. The 16-50 is a lot more money - about twice as much. The extra money buys weather sealing, SDM focus motor in the lens, and 5 more mm of reach at the long end. These advantages were worth it to me, so I bought the 16-50 rather than the 16-45. Check out the lens reviews for the two lenses here on the forums.

Marc Sabatella · 04-21-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

Everything I have heard about the 16-45 is that it is an excellent lens. The 16-50 is a lot more money - about twice as much. The extra money buys weather sealing, SDM focus motor in the lens, and 5 more mm of reach at the long end.

And a whole stop of speed (f/2.8 versus f/4) - that's what *really* accounts for the difference price.

**Ash** · 04-21-2009, 04:58 PM

I'd agree with most here.
'Upgrading' the quality of your lenses would be the only reason to replace your kit lens, which is already a good performer, and I think you could stick with your 55-300, unless you simply want something faster - then you're looking at big bucks.

On the other hand, as said - if you find yourself using your kit lens for lots of wide angle shots, the 16-45 or even 16-50 are very good choices - depends on your budget.

Others have mentioned the 12-24 for even more wide angle, and the 10-17 for fun - these are also very, very good quality lenses.

Really depends on what you really want...

**Canada_Rockies** · 04-21-2009, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

And a whole stop of speed (f/2.8 versus f/4) - that's what *really* accounts for the difference price.

Oops! left that out! Thanks, Marc.

04-20-2009, 10:55 PM	#16
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies I think any lens at 16mm has distortion. I found that DxO Pro very nicely took all the distortion away, so I added that to my arsenal. It also does the same for the Pentax DA 12-24, 50-135 and 50 macro. They may have added other lenses, but I don't have them. What about the 16-45? What you have heard or read?

04-21-2009, 01:28 AM	#17
Recercare Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 359	Why are you considering a new lens ? Is it just LBA or are you unhappy with the ones you have? Kind regards .lars

04-21-2009, 08:51 AM	#18
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by res3567 What about the 16-45? What you have heard or read? Everything I have heard about the 16-45 is that it is an excellent lens. The 16-50 is a lot more money - about twice as much. The extra money buys weather sealing, SDM focus motor in the lens, and 5 more mm of reach at the long end. These advantages were worth it to me, so I bought the 16-50 rather than the 16-45. Check out the lens reviews for the two lenses here on the forums.

04-21-2009, 04:07 PM	#19
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies Everything I have heard about the 16-45 is that it is an excellent lens. The 16-50 is a lot more money - about twice as much. The extra money buys weather sealing, SDM focus motor in the lens, and 5 more mm of reach at the long end. And a whole stop of speed (f/2.8 versus f/4) - that's what really accounts for the difference price.

04-21-2009, 04:58 PM	#20
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I'd agree with most here. 'Upgrading' the quality of your lenses would be the only reason to replace your kit lens, which is already a good performer, and I think you could stick with your 55-300, unless you simply want something faster - then you're looking at big bucks. On the other hand, as said - if you find yourself using your kit lens for lots of wide angle shots, the 16-45 or even 16-50 are very good choices - depends on your budget. Others have mentioned the 12-24 for even more wide angle, and the 10-17 for fun - these are also very, very good quality lenses. Really depends on what you really want...

04-21-2009, 05:01 PM	#21
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella And a whole stop of speed (f/2.8 versus f/4) - that's what really accounts for the difference price. Oops! left that out! Thanks, Marc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search