Getting rid of the 16-50 to go to pancakes. Thoughts?

axl · 01-05-2010, 10:43 AM

I decided to chime in.
Never owned 16-50 but used to have 50-135. Now with direct side by side comparison, 40 & 50 are quite close and my 50-135 was bit wider at 50 than my F50. Back in those days I'd take 10-20, 31ltd and 50-135. Rarely missedd a shot.
If you want to keep the 50-135, I'd go with 31 or 35 (whether DA or FA) and would skip 40.
Just my 2p

PentHassyKon · 01-05-2010, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by herzzreh

You find 16-45 bulky? Haha... try handling 16-50! After doing this, the 16-45 will seem like a pancake lens!

One of the reasons why I chose not to go after the 16-50.
It's all relative I guess. If I'm comparing bulk against my Hassy, then my Pentax k200d w 16-45 can be considered a pancake. But, my goal in taking pictures with the Pentax is for "street" type photos, candids. Hence my thought is to go with primes, single focal length, when I'm out and about taking pictures.

asdf · 01-05-2010, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

One of the reasons why I chose not to go after the 16-50.
It's all relative I guess. If I'm comparing bulk against my Hassy, then my Pentax k200d w 16-45 can be considered a pancake. But, my goal in taking pictures with the Pentax is for "street" type photos, candids. Hence my thought is to go with primes, single focal length, when I'm out and about taking pictures.

Even my relatively giant "modern" primes with their 77mm filter threads are dwarfed by many of these zooms when they're extended. Even Tamron 90 f/2.8 (with focus limiter on) seems discreet when compared to the zooms.

GeneV · 01-05-2010, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by asdf

Even my relatively giant "modern" primes with their 77mm filter threads are dwarfed by many of these zooms when they're extended. Even Tamron 90 f/2.8 (with focus limiter on) seems discreet when compared to the zooms.

So true. When you look at a 17-70 extended, it is hard to believe it is providing less telephoto than the FA77--and with 2+ stops of speed.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I want to get rid of the image in the signature, how?	pcarfan	Site Suggestions and Help	4	03-25-2009 01:35 PM
Getting rid of noise.	jbrowning	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	08-28-2008 08:55 AM
Getting rid of yellowing? How?	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	01-29-2008 05:34 PM
Get rid of the bird?	Tom Lusk	Post Your Photos!	15	09-26-2007 01:24 PM
Dots. Can't get rid of them!	skaktuss	Photographic Technique	7	03-28-2007 10:12 PM

01-05-2010, 10:43 AM	#31
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	I decided to chime in. Never owned 16-50 but used to have 50-135. Now with direct side by side comparison, 40 & 50 are quite close and my 50-135 was bit wider at 50 than my F50. Back in those days I'd take 10-20, 31ltd and 50-135. Rarely missedd a shot. If you want to keep the 50-135, I'd go with 31 or 35 (whether DA or FA) and would skip 40. Just my 2p

01-05-2010, 10:55 AM	#32
PentHassyKon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: SoCal Posts: 415	Originally posted by herzzreh You find 16-45 bulky? Haha... try handling 16-50! After doing this, the 16-45 will seem like a pancake lens! One of the reasons why I chose not to go after the 16-50. It's all relative I guess. If I'm comparing bulk against my Hassy, then my Pentax k200d w 16-45 can be considered a pancake. But, my goal in taking pictures with the Pentax is for "street" type photos, candids. Hence my thought is to go with primes, single focal length, when I'm out and about taking pictures.

01-05-2010, 10:58 AM	#33
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by PentHassyKon One of the reasons why I chose not to go after the 16-50. It's all relative I guess. If I'm comparing bulk against my Hassy, then my Pentax k200d w 16-45 can be considered a pancake. But, my goal in taking pictures with the Pentax is for "street" type photos, candids. Hence my thought is to go with primes, single focal length, when I'm out and about taking pictures. Even my relatively giant "modern" primes with their 77mm filter threads are dwarfed by many of these zooms when they're extended. Even Tamron 90 f/2.8 (with focus limiter on) seems discreet when compared to the zooms.

01-05-2010, 11:52 AM	#34
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by asdf Even my relatively giant "modern" primes with their 77mm filter threads are dwarfed by many of these zooms when they're extended. Even Tamron 90 f/2.8 (with focus limiter on) seems discreet when compared to the zooms. So true. When you look at a 17-70 extended, it is hard to believe it is providing less telephoto than the FA77--and with 2+ stops of speed.