Originally posted by Bossy Well, I'm considering this lens as my new walkaround zoom lens since my Kit lens is kinda cracky..
This might be OOT, but,not about the range, does it perform better than Tamron's 28-75 or Sigma's 24-70 at F.2.8 ??
Cheers..
I use a 16-50 as a walk around lens and have a very early number. the problem is frankly that the others are 'film camera' focal lengths which is just too long for the digital camera. but then when others thought a 35mm wide angle was just right for a film camera, I owned a 28mm F2 which I thought was just right
as a fixed focal length. I'd say the vast majority of the photos I take with the 16-50 are at 16----
I own for rexample a FA24 f/2 prime which is pretty well regarded, but I rarely use it because it is too long for 'scapes'.---in my opinion.
the downside of the 16-50 is that built in flash can't see over the top of it.