Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

CP140 · 04-05-2013, 07:00 PM

Hi All,

A local store has the DA15-45 F4 on sale for $249 (CDN$). Current lenses are 18-55 ALII, 18-55WR, 55-300, 35-80 (film vintage), 18-135WR and a Tamron 18-200, Sigma 70 Macro.

Obviously the 15-45 doesn't extend my focal length "reach" very much and really does duplicate (in terms of focal lengths covered) lenses I already have.

Having said that, the price is quite attractive... so... for $249 is it something I should snatch up or should I leave my credit card at home?

wlachan · 04-05-2013, 07:02 PM

I think you have had enough overlap...

SpecialK · 04-05-2013, 07:08 PM

I would dump the 18-55, 35-80, and 18-200. Then get the 12-24. That will give you a true decent WA, a WR mid-range and moderate telephoto, and a long tele.

Nick Siebers · 04-05-2013, 07:20 PM

I would jump on the 16-45 at that good price. Then jettison the 2 18-55s, and probably the 18-200 as well. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm, and IQ of the 16-45 is better than the 18-55s, and in my rough testing a little better than the 18-135 as well. So then you'd have the 18-135 for a 1 lens kit, 16-45 and 55-300 for a 2 lens kit, and the 70 for macro. Plus the 35-80 can hold down papers on your desk if it is windy. :-)

pxpaulx · 04-05-2013, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

I would jump on the 16-45 at that good price. Then jettison the 2 18-55s, and probably the 18-200 as well. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm, and IQ of the 16-45 is better than the 18-55s, and in my rough testing a little better than the 18-135 as well. So then you'd have the 18-135 for a 1 lens kit, 16-45 and 55-300 for a 2 lens kit, and the 70 for macro. Plus the 35-80 can hold down papers on your desk if it is windy. :-)

Completely agree here. There is no point overlapping mutliple so-so kit lenses (18-55s, 18-200, and the 35-80) when you could have a very solid kit with the 16-45, 18-135 and 55-300, along with the macro. Keep in mind, the 16-45 might be an overlap of the 18-135 too, but it if a constant F4, a definite step up from kit lens quality, and 2mm on the wide end make a fairly significant difference. Unless you want to shell out $500+ on a decent true ultra-wide, the 16-45 is a great lens to own, and that is a very reasonable price.

VisualDarkness · 04-05-2013, 07:33 PM

I find the pics that my brother shot with his 16-45mm, before dropping it on sharp stones, still works but is decentered or something. They look better than the 18-55, no doubt. Do you need the 18-55's when you have the 18-135 for WR? Maybe ditch them and get the 16-45mm for a slightly wider angle at higher image quality?

I agree with the review here and the CA from this lens seems to be less glaring than many other lenses with CA "issues".
Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

jimr-pdx · 04-05-2013, 08:46 PM

It's a choice between 16-45 and 18-135 in my mind. If you like WR and quiet focus, the 16-45 would not get much use (kinda like the 18-55s perhaps?

). If 18mm doesn't cut it at times, the 16-45 is an ideal answer. I use WR a lot so the 18-55wr is 'forced' upon me

but I'd love another copy of the 16-45. Its close focus skills are similar to the 18-55 and at 16mm the effect can be really fun.

bhairavp · 04-05-2013, 09:21 PM

16-45? Hell yes!
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/159332-architecture-taj-mahal.html

DSims · 04-05-2013, 09:33 PM

Get the 16-45. Dump one or both 18-55s. Don't underestimate the value of a fixed f/4 aperture. Every f/4 Pentax zoom I've ever used has good image quality.

CP140 · 04-05-2013, 10:17 PM

Thanks for the comments everyone... might just have to abuse my Visa tomorrow and talk to B&H about trade-ins in the fall.

Like you Jim, living in the Pacific North Wet makes the WR almost a "must have." I'm going to be in NYC in the fall and it's looking like I might just have to talk about trading some "surplus" glass in on a serious WA... the SIgma 8-16 keeps catching my eye.

The 18-55, 18-200 and 35-80 (despite it's usefulness as a paperweight) are candidates for trade in.

Again... thanks for the comments.

baldrick · 04-06-2013, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by bhairavp

16-45? Hell yes!
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/159332-architecture-taj-mahal.html

What he said ++++. I`ve had one for 2 years, it lives on my K20 and I love it. Stop thinking and buy.........

kent · 04-06-2013, 01:46 AM

Hell yes... 10 times better than kit lens, very sharp from f4 from corner to corner. Focus speed is not overly faster than kit, but still this was one of the best zoom lenses I had.

builttospill · 04-06-2013, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

I would jump on the 16-45 at that good price. Then jettison the 2 18-55s, and probably the 18-200 as well. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm, and IQ of the 16-45 is better than the 18-55s, and in my rough testing a little better than the 18-135 as well. So then you'd have the 18-135 for a 1 lens kit, 16-45 and 55-300 for a 2 lens kit, and the 70 for macro. Plus the 35-80 can hold down papers on your desk if it is windy. :-)

Originally posted by kent

Hell yes... 10 times better than kit lens, very sharp from f4 from corner to corner. Focus speed is not overly faster than kit, but still this was one of the best zoom lenses I had.

Agreed. After having the DA 18-55, DA 17-70, DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50 I kept only one. My two useful zooms are the 16-45 and FA* 80-200. The 16-45 is a stellar lens.

tibbitts · 04-06-2013, 10:47 AM

I was very pleased with my 16-45, which I've used since buying it with my new K100d in 2007. But whether due to the evolution from 6 to 16mp, or maybe with a little wear and tear, the well-known barrel wobble is now definitely affecting performance in portrait orientation. Otherwise, it's an excellent lens, but that's a significant flaw for which there isn't a practical workaround. If you can find one that doesn't wobble, then I'd recommend that... but mine wobbled at least a fair amount even when new. It just didn't seem to affect pictures as much with the K100, and maybe it wobbles even more now. If I only used landscape orientation, I might still be happy with it.

Paul

builttospill · 04-06-2013, 12:57 PM

That's a good point about the wobble. After having mine for several years, it doesn't wobble at all. However some other people here, including me, have had difficulty with the lens locking focusing at 16mm. I bought the lens used here on the Forums, and at first, I didn't have any problems with it locking focus at all. It wasn't until about a year later when it started. It rarely occurs, and I'm not sure if it's something with the lens or the camera. My camera doesn't struggle to focus any other lens though.

04-05-2013, 07:00 PM	#1
CP140 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Greater Vancouver Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 190	DA 16-45 Yes or No Hi All, A local store has the DA15-45 F4 on sale for $249 (CDN$). Current lenses are 18-55 ALII, 18-55WR, 55-300, 35-80 (film vintage), 18-135WR and a Tamron 18-200, Sigma 70 Macro. Obviously the 15-45 doesn't extend my focal length "reach" very much and really does duplicate (in terms of focal lengths covered) lenses I already have. Having said that, the price is quite attractive... so... for $249 is it something I should snatch up or should I leave my credit card at home?

04-05-2013, 10:17 PM	#10
CP140 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Greater Vancouver Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 190 Original Poster	Thanks for the comments everyone... might just have to abuse my Visa tomorrow and talk to B&H about trade-ins in the fall. Like you Jim, living in the Pacific North Wet makes the WR almost a "must have." I'm going to be in NYC in the fall and it's looking like I might just have to talk about trading some "surplus" glass in on a serious WA... the SIgma 8-16 keeps catching my eye. The 18-55, 18-200 and 35-80 (despite it's usefulness as a paperweight) are candidates for trade in. Again... thanks for the comments. Last edited by CP140; 04-05-2013 at 10:30 PM. Reason: Dumb fingers

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Image quality: DA 16-45 f4 or FA 28-105 f4-5.6 or something else?	fanofcc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-10-2013 05:07 PM
Hypothetical: yes or no	pentee	Pentax DSLR Discussion	62	03-16-2013 12:42 PM
DA 15mm Limited or 16-45/17-70?	NitroDC	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-17-2013 07:03 PM
People High Contrast - yes or no?	Tom Woj	Photo Critique	11	10-09-2012 09:10 PM

04-05-2013, 07:02 PM	#2
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I think you have had enough overlap...

04-05-2013, 07:08 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	I would dump the 18-55, 35-80, and 18-200. Then get the 12-24. That will give you a true decent WA, a WR mid-range and moderate telephoto, and a long tele.

04-05-2013, 07:20 PM	#4
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	I would jump on the 16-45 at that good price. Then jettison the 2 18-55s, and probably the 18-200 as well. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm, and IQ of the 16-45 is better than the 18-55s, and in my rough testing a little better than the 18-135 as well. So then you'd have the 18-135 for a 1 lens kit, 16-45 and 55-300 for a 2 lens kit, and the 70 for macro. Plus the 35-80 can hold down papers on your desk if it is windy. :-)

04-05-2013, 07:29 PM	#5
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Originally posted by Nick Siebers I would jump on the 16-45 at that good price. Then jettison the 2 18-55s, and probably the 18-200 as well. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm, and IQ of the 16-45 is better than the 18-55s, and in my rough testing a little better than the 18-135 as well. So then you'd have the 18-135 for a 1 lens kit, 16-45 and 55-300 for a 2 lens kit, and the 70 for macro. Plus the 35-80 can hold down papers on your desk if it is windy. :-) Completely agree here. There is no point overlapping mutliple so-so kit lenses (18-55s, 18-200, and the 35-80) when you could have a very solid kit with the 16-45, 18-135 and 55-300, along with the macro. Keep in mind, the 16-45 might be an overlap of the 18-135 too, but it if a constant F4, a definite step up from kit lens quality, and 2mm on the wide end make a fairly significant difference. Unless you want to shell out $500+ on a decent true ultra-wide, the 16-45 is a great lens to own, and that is a very reasonable price.

04-05-2013, 07:33 PM	#6
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	I find the pics that my brother shot with his 16-45mm, before dropping it on sharp stones, still works but is decentered or something. They look better than the 18-55, no doubt. Do you need the 18-55's when you have the 18-135 for WR? Maybe ditch them and get the 16-45mm for a slightly wider angle at higher image quality? I agree with the review here and the CA from this lens seems to be less glaring than many other lenses with CA "issues". Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

04-05-2013, 08:46 PM	#7
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	It's a choice between 16-45 and 18-135 in my mind. If you like WR and quiet focus, the 16-45 would not get much use (kinda like the 18-55s perhaps? ). If 18mm doesn't cut it at times, the 16-45 is an ideal answer. I use WR a lot so the 18-55wr is 'forced' upon me but I'd love another copy of the 16-45. Its close focus skills are similar to the 18-55 and at 16mm the effect can be really fun.

04-05-2013, 09:21 PM	#8
bhairavp Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 399	16-45? Hell yes! https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/159332-architecture-taj-mahal.html

04-05-2013, 09:33 PM	#9
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Get the 16-45. Dump one or both 18-55s. Don't underestimate the value of a fixed f/4 aperture. Every f/4 Pentax zoom I've ever used has good image quality.

04-06-2013, 01:39 AM	#11
baldrick Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bulli, NSW Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 67	Originally posted by bhairavp 16-45? Hell yes! https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/159332-architecture-taj-mahal.html What he said ++++. I`ve had one for 2 years, it lives on my K20 and I love it. Stop thinking and buy.........

04-06-2013, 01:46 AM	#12
kent Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 344	Hell yes... 10 times better than kit lens, very sharp from f4 from corner to corner. Focus speed is not overly faster than kit, but still this was one of the best zoom lenses I had.

04-06-2013, 09:51 AM	#13
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by Nick Siebers I would jump on the 16-45 at that good price. Then jettison the 2 18-55s, and probably the 18-200 as well. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm, and IQ of the 16-45 is better than the 18-55s, and in my rough testing a little better than the 18-135 as well. So then you'd have the 18-135 for a 1 lens kit, 16-45 and 55-300 for a 2 lens kit, and the 70 for macro. Plus the 35-80 can hold down papers on your desk if it is windy. :-) Originally posted by kent Hell yes... 10 times better than kit lens, very sharp from f4 from corner to corner. Focus speed is not overly faster than kit, but still this was one of the best zoom lenses I had. Agreed. After having the DA 18-55, DA 17-70, DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50 I kept only one. My two useful zooms are the 16-45 and FA* 80-200. The 16-45 is a stellar lens.

04-06-2013, 10:47 AM	#14
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	I was very pleased with my 16-45, which I've used since buying it with my new K100d in 2007. But whether due to the evolution from 6 to 16mp, or maybe with a little wear and tear, the well-known barrel wobble is now definitely affecting performance in portrait orientation. Otherwise, it's an excellent lens, but that's a significant flaw for which there isn't a practical workaround. If you can find one that doesn't wobble, then I'd recommend that... but mine wobbled at least a fair amount even when new. It just didn't seem to affect pictures as much with the K100, and maybe it wobbles even more now. If I only used landscape orientation, I might still be happy with it. Paul

04-06-2013, 12:57 PM	#15
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	That's a good point about the wobble. After having mine for several years, it doesn't wobble at all. However some other people here, including me, have had difficulty with the lens locking focusing at 16mm. I bought the lens used here on the Forums, and at first, I didn't have any problems with it locking focus at all. It wasn't until about a year later when it started. It rarely occurs, and I'm not sure if it's something with the lens or the camera. My camera doesn't struggle to focus any other lens though.

DA 16-45 Yes or No

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!