Lightbulb said:Everyone entitles to his own opinion, my copy of 16-50 is inferior to 18-135 in many ways. At times it does nice photos, but I think there are ways to improve it further given the price tag. But then again the price is now cheaper @SGD 1100, maybe sometime is coming? ;p
I think the 16-85 could be a f 2.8/4 to be able to make some sense.
Moonlightsg said:To me, the 16-50mm now is only a so so lens ... yes may be cannot compare to a prime... and I expect it can be better... it is double of the price of the 3rd party one and the weight is ...
Moonlightsg said:16-50mm is not bad... just that i feel it can be improved...
the length is useful for most of the usage...
i sure will use it when i travel and have event to shoot...
like the quickshift and the build of it
to me it is too heavy compare to other option...
price is ...
anyway this mode is somehow not new... may be lens wise is good still... but the elecitical part may need some update...
Got this lens for more than 1.5yrs. Stay on my camera 60% of the time, % went up when on trip.. Have a Tammy 17-50 too, it was on par for both, except DA* deliver more vibrant color more contracts, but things have changed after calibration... DA* produce sharper image(focus more accurately).. now 17-50 sitting in cabinet dunno waiting for what.. Any taker?? hehe!
To me, it worth the $$. Factor in the weather resistant and quiet focusing.. useful for indoor and outdoor
Now, waiting for a WR wide angle... road map hint