[Nick Cheese]

Hi all,
New to the site, so apologies if this is discussed elsewhere.
Has anyone any feedback on the 16-85 lens?

I have the 50-135 and the 100 macro, now looking for something a bit wider. I have also been asked to do a wedding next year so need something that will suit.
The 16-50 seems to get mixed reviews so looking at the 16-85 as an alternative.

INick

[pepperberry farm]

welcome to PF!



handful of user reviews:

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Adam]

Here you go:

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

It's certainly a viable alternative if you can live with the slower aperture.

[Tas]

A simple search query on 16-85 pops up some extra options after you've read the reviews previously posted above: "16-85" - Search Results - PentaxForums.com

Good luck, and welcome to the forums.

Tas

[BigMackCam]

Hello and welcome to the forums

Those that have a good copy of the 16-85 (which, I think, is most owners) really like it. I had problems with two brand new units in succession, and those problems have also been reported by others. See a recent thread in which I posted my experiences as a reply to the original poster:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/328997-expe...s-16-85mm.html

If you get a good copy - and the chances are you will - then I think you would like it. But I would check to make sure that it doesn't exhibit any issues, and if it does, send it back for replacement; don't put up with a sub-standard example.

[Nick Cheese]

Many thanks for the help one and all.
Nick

[timb64]

Welcome,have a look at this too.....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/301618-da-1...at-can-do.html

[Nick Cheese]

Cheers. Looks like a good bit of kit!

[Bob from Aus]

Welcome

I love using my 16-85 and it's my all time favourite mid range zoom. It's very light and I find it it a very credible lens. I'm not happy with my sigma 17-50 F2.8 and it's been collecting dust.

If you were a professional wedding photographer, I think the lens lower F stop might be a problem. However for the odd wedding for friends the colour I get out of my lens is a winner.

[FantasticMrFox]

I have the 50-135 and the 100 macro, now looking for something a bit wider. I have also been asked to do a wedding next year so need something that will suit. The 16-50 seems to get mixed reviews so looking at the 16-85 as an alternative.

For a wedding a f/2.8 lens is certainly more suitable than a f/3.5-5.6. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 has great image quality and is about a third of the price of the Pentax one, so I would recommend that over the 16-85.

[BigMackCam]

+1 on the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 - it's great even wide open; excellent for lower light and indoor shooting. This is what I bought to replace the second 16-85 and I've been really happy with it.

[Blacknight659]

In a wedding environment, wide and fast are needed, and a shot tele lens. If you have a flash to make up a bit for the slower lens, or add a few fast primes for when the light gets really bad. All other applications, the 16-85 will work great, and if you arn't planning on shooting any more weddings, just go with the 16-85, make it work for this one occasion and then enjoy your awesome lens.

I used to use the Sigma 17-50 2.8. I loved the results, but I wasn't crazy about the handling and lack of WR. It produced the goods every time, but I was looking for something I enjoyed to use a bit more.

I now use the 20-40 limited and the zoom range / aperture combo makes it a lot harder to separate the subject from the background. For this reason, I keep primes with me, but I tend to leave the people shots to the 50-135. I owned an 18-135 for 2 years, and with the zoom range, i could still get subject separation, so I think the 16-85 won't hold you back here.

So.... I think the 16-85 will do you just fine, just keep in mind you might need higher iso and may want to keep a fast prime with you for subject isolation (DA 25 or DA 50 would do nice).

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I 3rd the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Don't get me wrong. The Pentax 16-85mm is a mighty fine lens, but I much prefer a constant aperture lens. The Sigma is also way cheaper. You are giving up weather sealing with the Sigma lens, though.

[Nick Cheese]

It will be a one off, and I have made the couple very much aware that I am no pro. They are fine with it and want more casual than formal shots. It will go away in the evening so it will just be day shots. The Sigma reviews well, so I am now joyfully confused...😀
I like the fixed 2.8 so would make sense, just need to work out which would suit best as a general walk around lens.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

They both have their pluses & minuses. With the Pentax 16-85, you get a wider zoom, longer zoom, & weather sealing at the cost of slow variable aperture. You'll have to shoot higher ISO at times. If you don't do much low light shooting, this lens would probably be your best bet.

The Sigma lens gives you that constant f/2.8 aperture which makes low light shooting at lower ISO a breeze. You give up weather sealing, a millimeter wide angle, & the slightly longer reach. But yeah! Once you set the aperture, ISO, & shutter speed, you're good to go using the same settings throughout the zoom range.

Pick your poison.