>>4380763That close up looks pretty sharp, but it does seem something's off with the far focus. It seems like some area should be sharp.
I took some more pictures in my living room with the K-70 from farther away 10-15 ft and I would say it was equivalent to what you see with the figure with the light softness, but no drastic changes. The figure picture gives a good idea of what to expect.
I also tried with the K-X and I was having a lot more trouble with the focus, but at least one of the f1.8 looked similar.
Probably any of the new 50s would be sharper just because it looks like something's off. The macro 50 is sharp at 2.8, its widest aperature.
>>4378570f6.3 This turned out to be interesting with the ants, but I probably took it from the wrong angle.
>>4379955Used? That seems like either a bad price for the 18-135 or a deal for the 16-85.
Based off what you said, it seems like the 50mm reach difference might be the thing to consider.
