|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-29-2015, 01:44 PM
|
| |
Yes... and no... They went with SDM rather than DC for the AF drive... plus, I personally much prefer the mechanical feel and aesthetic design of the 20-40 (not saying it's better - I just prefer it). I'll be honest, the numerous reports of SDM failure have steered me away from the 16-50, which is a shame. I came close to buying one recently after my second copy of the 16-85 had issues, but ended up going for the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 instead. Time will tell whether that was a wise choice or not, but so far I like it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-29-2015, 12:30 PM
|
| |
And I would love that 20-40 WR to become an 18-50 f/2.8 with WR :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-28-2015, 05:21 AM
|
| |
I prefer my prime lenses, but I have three zooms that I use regularly - the 20-40 Limited WR, 55-300 WR and Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. If the weather is decent but I don't want to be swapping out the primes, I use the Sigma 17-50 and 55-300 as a two lens kit. Both lenses give me all the IQ I could wish for (from zoom lenses) and almost full coverage from 17-300mm (the gap between 50mm and 55mm is of no consequence). If the weather isn't so good, I'll leave the Sigma at home and take the 20-40 instead. It's not as fast or versatile as the Sigma, but it is WR, I like the way it renders, and most of the time I can use my feet to zoom in or out as required.
I did own the 16-85 WR and loved both the focal length range and the WR - however, both copies I tried had defects which have been reported by other users, and were returned (I also really disliked the manual focus action on this lens). If it weren't for that, my ideal WR kit would have been the 16-85 and 55-300. But, sadly, I lost confidence in the 16-85 and bought the Sigma to replace it, despite the lack of WR.
Of late, I've been thinking of trying a rain cover when using the Sigma and my other non-WR lenses...
|
