Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-22-2011, 07:45 PM   #16
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
Yes, it's worth it. I've owned the 18-55 I, DA 17-70, *16-50 and 16-45 all about the same time period. I kept only the 16-45. My favorite was the 17-70, but after replacing the SDM I got rid of it and the 16-50, deciding not to take that route again. I'm very happy with the 16-45, although its faults have already been mentioned: it extends as you zoom out and sometimes 45 isn't quite enough reach.

It's also been mentioned here it may not be worth it if you plan on getting other nice lenses in a similar range, e.g. 12-24. But if that's down the road a while, I'd suggest getting the 16-45.

09-22-2011, 08:08 PM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 396
Shot with the DA16-45@16
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/159332-architecture-taj-...ml#post1653325
09-22-2011, 09:15 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
I understand you disagree--obviously, without having ever used DxO, and likely without having an idea of what DxO actually does--with my personal decision, but could you please use softer words? You know, for a plus of civility?

On the other hand, I fail to get the logic of your statement: how is what I said like the claims that "advances in the sensor technology of the K-5 made many of the legacy lenses obsolete"? I've used and still use many old lenses... I think the 50mm old lenses and many Taks are optically better than most modern zooms. Also, lots of old zooms (especially tele-) are in many ways superior to their modern counterparts. (BTW, I use an uncoated Takumar-F 70-200mm). I keep my old lenses, although DxO doesn't have modules for them.

My statement concerns strictly the possibility of factoring the advantages of the DxO in the specific comparison between the kit lens and the 16-45mm. I actually said the 16-45mm was the superior lens of the two.
As a matter of fact I have used DxO and for most PP operation, it's quick and simple to use - it is my software of choice for PP. As for the DxO modules, none of my lenses have modules written for them.

You've stated that you sold the 16-45 because with DxO, there was no reason to keep it. Perhaps you sold the 16-45 because you have other superior lenses that cover or duplicate the focal length range of the 16-45, but I don't think any software would be the sole or even primary reason for getting rid of a lens. I've made the comparison between the K-5 sensor making legacy lenses obsolete with your blanket statement about getting rid of your 16-45 because DxO made the lens unnecessary - if DxO can do wonders for your other lenses, why wouldn't it do the same for the 16-45?

Maybe someday I will acquire a Pentax lens that I will want to shoot regularly with that has a DxO module written for it (well, I probably have one already (DA 17-70) except for the effing SDM failure rendered it about as good as a paperweight) and discover for myself what you have discovered about DxO and it's modules. If at that time I find myself becoming astounded by DxO modules, I will be certain to admit to you that I was wrong.

Thanks,
09-22-2011, 10:25 PM   #19
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
The DA 16-45 impressed me.
Upgraded to the DA* 16-50 and indeed it was better optically (more brilliant and punchy colours, plus a stop faster) but some of my finest landscapes were captured with it (the 16-45), e.g.:









09-23-2011, 04:23 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,364
The 16-45 is one of my more recent acquisitions. I like the lens but my copy will focus past infinity, and with my K10D can do just that on AF (i.e., back focus) on distant subjects. So until I upgrade to a K-5 it is challenging for me to get the most out of this lens. In terms of sharpness my 18-55 actually holds up quite well by comparison, maybe just a touch softer. But the 16-45 has much better color rendition.
09-23-2011, 04:46 AM   #21
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
You've stated that you sold the 16-45 because with DxO, there was no reason to keep it. Perhaps you sold the 16-45 because you have other superior lenses that cover or duplicate the focal length range of the 16-45, but I don't think any software would be the sole or even primary reason for getting rid of a lens. I've made the comparison between the K-5 sensor making legacy lenses obsolete with your blanket statement about getting rid of your 16-45 because DxO made the lens unnecessary - if DxO can do wonders for your other lenses, why wouldn't it do the same for the 16-45?
Indeed, DxO does wonders for 16-45 as well, but the OP expressed a long term interest in a 12-24mm and/ or a 16-45mm, so I assumed for her it was 'either... or...' for her. I think Stormtech offered the best piece of advice: she can try both lenses to compare before and after DxO.
For me, DxO erased the difference in quality between the two. I liked the 16mm of the larger zoom a lot (see the links posted below), but for me that advantage was offset by the larger size and weight of the 16-45. And I wanted to go wider, anyway. Another reason was that I could use the money to get other lenses. So, DxO wasn't the only reason, yet it was a decisive reason.
Interestingly, I find DxO slow and difficult to use for other purposes. (I use it for the lighting effect in combination with the auto-exposure compensation function, and for the automatic geometric and softness correction.) For everything else I use Silkypix and a number of free programs. But wouldn't it be very boring if we all were/ did the same?

Some pics I took with the kit lens and PP-ed in DxO:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/153966-cityscape-empire-...reference.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/154026-other-four-3d-paintings.html
all pics in this thread, except the first one, taken with a 135mm
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/153956-cityscape-low-alt...ngton-d-c.html
all, except the first one and the 'bokeh' pics:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/144548-cityscape-idyllic...-cape-cod.html

Pics taken with the DA 16-45mm and DxO-ed:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/121807-cityscape-au-bord-de-la-seine.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/121903-cityscape-paris-ii.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/122717-cityscape-la-defense-ii.html

Last edited by causey; 09-23-2011 at 04:53 AM.
09-23-2011, 11:24 AM   #22
Senior Member
JenniferLeigh's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 280
Original Poster
Thanks to everyone for the helpful suggestions. I did download the DXO trial and so far I've been fairly impress with what it can do to my images from the 18-55mm. I haven't used lightroom 3 yet (still on 2) but I might wait until 4 until deciding on DXO, I'd rather not add the extra step to my workflow if I can avoid it.

Since Sol Invictus was kind enough to let me test drive the lens, I'll be taking it for a spin this weekend. While I am planning on the 12-24, this is at least a year down the road as the body upgrade will probably come first. I think the 16-45 will fill the void nicely. I will be taking some interior shots later this year for work, so the extra 2mm will be a huge plus. I generally shoot wide on my 18-55, I don't think I'll miss the extra 10mm on the long end but we'll see.

Thanks again for all the great advice and photos.
09-24-2011, 11:19 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Very nice cityscape shots Stefan - with all of your lenses. I commend you for your keen eye.

09-24-2011, 05:46 PM   #24
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
Very nice cityscape shots Stefan - with all of your lenses. I commend you for your keen eye.
Thank you very much for your kind words, excanonfd. I appreciate them.
Just posted another "Kit lens+DxO" thread--click on the pics to see them large:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/160062-cityscape-my-impr...ml#post1659791

Last edited by causey; 09-25-2011 at 06:26 AM.
09-24-2011, 06:49 PM   #25
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
I love my 16-45. I started with the 18-55 kit (v1) and bought the 16-45 as an upgrade to the 18-55. It owns me. I shoot 90% of my shots with it. The only thing I use my 18-55 for is infrared, but that's because the filter I have is 52mm (the 18-55 is a great lens to use if you are interested in IR, it's a well known, good lens for IR).

Some negative things though.

The lens hood is very loose. Taking it off and on many times has worn down the detents of the bayonet mount. Usually not a big deal, but annoying.

The lens does extend when you go wide, but that is only ever an issue if you use the onboard flash. I don't use it at all, so that isn't a problem for me.

The filter size is 67mm. Makes for expensive filters if you need them.

Good things:

The size of the front element means that you don't get much vignetting wide open like the 18-55 does (maybe 1/2 stop in the corner edges, barely noticeable until you see it corrected).

The minimum focus distance is around 9-11 inches (from the sensor). This lens is easy to use close to objects and still be able to focus.

Overall, a great upgrade from the 18-55. If the 16-50 ever comes down in price, I'll upgrade to that, but I'll have my 16-45 for a long time.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
16-45mm, da, da 16-45mm, k-mount, kit, pentax lens, slr lens, upgrade
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 a worthwhile upgrade for a jpg shooter? memaris Pentax K-5 13 10-31-2010 05:24 AM
Upgrade from kit to 16-45mm? A-z Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 48 05-10-2010 01:00 PM
Sigma 17-70mm OS HSM doesn't look like a worthwhile upgrade kenyee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 04-07-2010 08:45 PM
Worthwhile upgrade to K-x or not? silentbob007 Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 11-26-2009 08:02 PM
Is it worthwhile to upgrade ... kjao Pentax Film SLR Discussion 6 11-26-2008 11:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top