Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-05-2013, 07:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
CP140's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greater Vancouver
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 185
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, 07:02 PM   #2
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I think you have had enough overlap...
04-05-2013, 07:08 PM   #3
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,903
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
Site Supporter
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,152
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 2,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick Siebers Quote
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
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
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
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,550
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
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 396
16-45? Hell yes!
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/159332-architecture-taj-mahal.html

04-05-2013, 09:33 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
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.
04-05-2013, 10:17 PM   #10
Senior Member
CP140's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greater Vancouver
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 185
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
04-06-2013, 01:39 AM   #11
Forum Member
baldrick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bulli, NSW Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 67
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
Veteran Member
kent's Avatar

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
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick Siebers Quote
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. :-)
QuoteOriginally posted by kent Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,503
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
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
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.
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!
k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 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