DA 16-45mm has died...time for a replacement

kolgrimr · 01-20-2011, 03:33 PM

I need a replacement for my 16-45, which had survived (after some CPR) a major dunking in a muddy river a couple of years ago, but has finally given up the ghost - it refuses to stop down from f4. I'm pleased to get as much "extra" life out of this lens as I did, but it's time to get a replacement.

I primarily shoot outdoors in all sorts of weather conditions and usually live in the wide end. I really liked the colours the 16-45 gave me and would like to get something with similar colour reproduction and IQ. Another 16-45 is an option, but since I'm already buying a new lens, I'd like to upgrade and either get more range, or weather-sealing.

The DA* 16-50 would probably be ideal, but is outside of my price range, and a 17-70mm WR doesn't exist, so my main candidates right now are the new 18-135 (primarily because of WR) and the 17-70 (a bit more range than the 16-45, just as susceptible to the elements). I also have a 14mm, so losing a mm or 2 in the wide end is no big deal. Come to think of it, a prime could also be an option, though I haven't really considered that possibility.

Any recommendations? How much of a step down (I assume) would the 18-135 be, IQ-wise? I'm particularly curious about feedback from people who moved from the 16-45 to something else.

**seventhdr** · 01-20-2011, 04:40 PM

Save the pennies and get the DA* 16-50 f2.8. It will be a better lens for you.

Regards

Chris Stone

paddy567 · 01-20-2011, 05:10 PM

I moved from 16-45 to Tammy 28-75 2.8. Couldn't be happier. I thought I would miss the wide end, but actually I hardly notice the absence - but I do notice the extra on the long end.

SpecialK · 01-20-2011, 08:05 PM

Maybe you can get by with 14 on the wide end and a 16-xx, but I would suggest a 12-24.

And a camera condom if WR is important.

sewebster · 01-20-2011, 10:21 PM

I don't have either, but presumably you should also consider the tamron and sigma 17-50 options if you are willing to go without WR.

01-20-2011, 03:33 PM	#1
kolgrimr New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ON Posts: 1	DA 16-45mm has died...time for a replacement I need a replacement for my 16-45, which had survived (after some CPR) a major dunking in a muddy river a couple of years ago, but has finally given up the ghost - it refuses to stop down from f4. I'm pleased to get as much "extra" life out of this lens as I did, but it's time to get a replacement. I primarily shoot outdoors in all sorts of weather conditions and usually live in the wide end. I really liked the colours the 16-45 gave me and would like to get something with similar colour reproduction and IQ. Another 16-45 is an option, but since I'm already buying a new lens, I'd like to upgrade and either get more range, or weather-sealing. The DA* 16-50 would probably be ideal, but is outside of my price range, and a 17-70mm WR doesn't exist, so my main candidates right now are the new 18-135 (primarily because of WR) and the 17-70 (a bit more range than the 16-45, just as susceptible to the elements). I also have a 14mm, so losing a mm or 2 in the wide end is no big deal. Come to think of it, a prime could also be an option, though I haven't really considered that possibility. Any recommendations? How much of a step down (I assume) would the 18-135 be, IQ-wise? I'm particularly curious about feedback from people who moved from the 16-45 to something else.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Desktop died - what is important in replacement?	barondla	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	72	02-19-2010 08:01 AM
New K-X died?	bdtalley	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	12-28-2009 07:21 PM
My 43 1.9 limited has died	iñaki	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-27-2008 04:39 AM
My printer died, time to replace...	Buddha Jones	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	16	11-26-2008 03:28 PM
PSP died on me!!!	dudlew	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	03-21-2008 04:03 AM

01-20-2011, 04:40 PM	#2
seventhdr Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,443	Save the pennies and get the DA* 16-50 f2.8. It will be a better lens for you. Regards Chris Stone

01-20-2011, 05:10 PM	#3
paddy567 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 50	I moved from 16-45 to Tammy 28-75 2.8. Couldn't be happier. I thought I would miss the wide end, but actually I hardly notice the absence - but I do notice the extra on the long end.

01-20-2011, 08:05 PM	#4
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Maybe you can get by with 14 on the wide end and a 16-xx, but I would suggest a 12-24. And a camera condom if WR is important.

01-20-2011, 10:21 PM	#5
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	I don't have either, but presumably you should also consider the tamron and sigma 17-50 options if you are willing to go without WR.