[Spaceguy1]

I tried searching for this lens, but either the search function is down, or I'm too newbie to operate it...

Anyways, I was really interested in this lens instead of going for the 18-55 kit. How does it compare to other lenses in its price range and is it a big step up from the 18-55? I've read some reviews and the major negative seems to be the weird zoom style. Any other minuses for this lens? I'm not too concerned with the slowish aperture.

Thanks guys!

[Falcons]

I have the DA 16-45 and it has easily become my favourite lens. Here in Australia most Pentaxes are sold with a Sigma lens, so I had the Sigma 18-55 as a kit lens. The DA 16-45 is a huge step up in class compared to the Sigma lens.

There are supposedly some issues with CA at the wide end of the lens - this was mentioned in a fairly comprehensive review - but I don't seem to have a problem with it (and from the review they stated that the CA was the easily removed blue/yellow).

The other thing you will notice is that the lens extends as you go wider - which isn't a problem really unless you need to use on board flash as it can cause a shadow to be cast.

But IMHO for the price of this lens it is an absolutely stunning piece of glass and I highly recommend it.

I tried searching for this lens, but either the search function is down, or I'm too newbie to operate it...

Anyways, I was really interested in this lens instead of going for the 18-55 kit. How does it compare to other lenses in its price range and is it a big step up from the 18-55? I've read some reviews and the major negative seems to be the weird zoom style. Any other minuses for this lens? I'm not too concerned with the slowish aperture.

Thanks guys!

It's a great lens. the IQ from the lens is terrific. I had one and sold it to purchase the DA* 16-50.

Even though the focal lengths would be redundant, I'm thing about picking up another.

I'd say "Buy it".

[simonkit]

There seems to be 2 main kit lens replacements - the DA 16-45 & the Sigma 17-70.

I own the Sigma & it's a great lens. By most accounts IQ is comparable between the two, the 16-45 maybe suffering a little more CA.

I chose the Sigma based on focal range as I always found the "55" telephoto of the kit lens left me a little wanting.

I think either of these two choices would give you a noticeable improvement in IQ, not only detail but also colour rendition and contrast.

simon

[Chako]

Past September, I took both my Canon 20D and my Pentax K10D out at the same time to photograph the changing leaves. The 20D had the 17-40 f/4L and the K10D had the 16-45 f/4.

I kid you not, the Pentax camera and lens took better photographs with richer colours. I firmly believe that the Pentax lens is the equal if not slightly superior to the L lens. This is fantastic value for money at half the price of the Canon lens.

Go buy it. You will never regret it.

[Kaimarx]

Look up Benjikans profile, if im not mistaken he uses it in pro shoots. Its main fault is a bit of CA in high contrast scenes. Nothing that cant be fixed in post process easily.

[skaktuss]

I have 16-45 for about 3 days and I can only say it's my favorite lens. Extremely sharp, even wide open.

[Kaimarx]

I just had browse on the photozone site and the resolution on this lens is remarkable. Thats nearing prime quality.

[vievetrick]

This lens spends 70% of the time on the front of my K10. Well worth it.

[toobacat]

It's a great lens. the IQ from the lens is terrific. I had one and sold it to purchase the DA* 16-50.

Even though the focal lengths would be redundant, I'm thing about picking up another.

I'd say "Buy it".

Ed, Did the 16-45 have better IQ than your 16-50?

Ed, Did the 16-45 have better IQ than your 16-50?

I wouldn't say the 16-45 had a better IQ. It had a different rendering than the 16-50.

The DA* 16-50 seem a bit more contrasty.

I wish I had kept the 16-45 and done some comparison shots of the same scene at the same focal length and f/stop and same lighting so that I could make some real comparisons between the two.

[creampuff]

I like the lens a lot and have been happy with the results. Excellent quality and value.


K100D DA 16-45mm

[Finn]

I wouldn't say the 16-45 had a better IQ. It had a different rendering than the 16-50.

The DA* 16-50 seem a bit more contrasty.

I wish I had kept the 16-45 and done some comparison shots of the same scene at the same focal length and f/stop and same lighting so that I could make some real comparisons between the two.

Keep in mind the 16-45 is about half the price. Four hundred bucks seems like a lot for one stop.

I have the 16-45 and I love it. I consider myself a "prime guy" and the 16-45 is the only zoom I have ever actually liked. I routinely use it indoors wide open, and it never fails to impress. A big step up from the kit lens.

[Nesster]

I bought the 16-45 before I bought a digital body. It is fantastic, sharp but the major attribute is the concentrated tone and color it manages. Well worth it - unless I need something faster than f/4 or smaller on the camera, I have NO need for another wide angle lens at this point.

Keep in mind the 16-45 is about half the price. Four hundred bucks seems like a lot for one stop.

There's more for the $400 than just a single stop. The "SDM" part is worth a few bucks.

I liked the 16-45 very much. So much, that I may buy another and have both. Even as bulky as it is, it's less bulky than the 16-50. Which, BTW, I also like very much.