So I've got a bit of a questions for the fellow photographers of MR.
I'll be getting a Pentax dSLR body fairly soon and am planning on picking up either of the aforementioned lenses. I've been shooting with a Fujifilm F20 for the last year or so and have noticed several things:
1. I never really used the zoom on the Fuji, as I wanted to keep it at f2.8, with most of my pictures being taken in the dim early morning and early evening light. I checked most of the pictures I took in Portugal recently, and about 70-75% were shot at 35mm f/2.8. With the crop factor, the 21mm becomes close to 35mm, sadly though, it's a little slower at f/3.2.
2. I like small. A lot. I have this great idea that eventually I'm going to get all three DA pancakes and be able to carry them in my jacket/pockets without noticing. Light weight = good.
However, f/4 isn't all that different than f/3.2, and the 16-45mm appears to be just as sharp as the 21mm at the same focal length at f/4. Would I miss f/3.2 if I went with the zoom? I've also noticed that out of all the pancakes, the 21mm appears to be the least sharp across the frame. Additionally, the combined weight of all the pancakes is equivalent to the weight of the 16-45, so the light-weight factor of the pancakes is negated, although the primes are still infinitely more transportable and compact. Finally, with the zoom I'd have the added bonus of getting ultra-wide at the 16mm end of the zoom, something (obviously) lacking with the set of primes. And then there's cost...there's about a $50-60 difference between the zoom and the 21mm.
I would mainly be taking general snap-shots, low light/night urban and street shots, and landscapes.
Any advice or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
If you guys want to see some examples of the pictures I'll be taking, see the Flickr link below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walker_ep/
I'll be getting a Pentax dSLR body fairly soon and am planning on picking up either of the aforementioned lenses. I've been shooting with a Fujifilm F20 for the last year or so and have noticed several things:
1. I never really used the zoom on the Fuji, as I wanted to keep it at f2.8, with most of my pictures being taken in the dim early morning and early evening light. I checked most of the pictures I took in Portugal recently, and about 70-75% were shot at 35mm f/2.8. With the crop factor, the 21mm becomes close to 35mm, sadly though, it's a little slower at f/3.2.
2. I like small. A lot. I have this great idea that eventually I'm going to get all three DA pancakes and be able to carry them in my jacket/pockets without noticing. Light weight = good.
However, f/4 isn't all that different than f/3.2, and the 16-45mm appears to be just as sharp as the 21mm at the same focal length at f/4. Would I miss f/3.2 if I went with the zoom? I've also noticed that out of all the pancakes, the 21mm appears to be the least sharp across the frame. Additionally, the combined weight of all the pancakes is equivalent to the weight of the 16-45, so the light-weight factor of the pancakes is negated, although the primes are still infinitely more transportable and compact. Finally, with the zoom I'd have the added bonus of getting ultra-wide at the 16mm end of the zoom, something (obviously) lacking with the set of primes. And then there's cost...there's about a $50-60 difference between the zoom and the 21mm.
I would mainly be taking general snap-shots, low light/night urban and street shots, and landscapes.
Any advice or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
If you guys want to see some examples of the pictures I'll be taking, see the Flickr link below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walker_ep/