It's not like I'll be using the 16-50 daily - for the actual work, I'll be carrying the real gear set into action, and when I'm marooned at the office, there's no need to shoot. But it'll be handy for carrying "just in case" as none of the Canon mount lenses I have is nearly as compact.
The 24 MP I'm getting is perfectly adequate, and maybe even overkill - yesterday I was editing an ages old (okay, 2004 vintage) 2 MP picture for (online) publication, cropped it some, and even then I still got the desired result.
Of course, for print it would have been a different story.
BTW I stumbled upon another review site doing evaluations of mostly Nikon gear, photographylife.com. what piqued my interest was that they're using the same Imatest methods as OL does. I'm a sucker for scientific looking charts and whatnot, they somehow make the results more believable for me. The 16-50 got decent scores there.
The 24 MP I'm getting is perfectly adequate, and maybe even overkill - yesterday I was editing an ages old (okay, 2004 vintage) 2 MP picture for (online) publication, cropped it some, and even then I still got the desired result.
Of course, for print it would have been a different story.BTW I stumbled upon another review site doing evaluations of mostly Nikon gear, photographylife.com. what piqued my interest was that they're using the same Imatest methods as OL does. I'm a sucker for scientific looking charts and whatnot, they somehow make the results more believable for me.
The 16-50 got decent scores there.