[MortenV]

I´m travelling a lot and normally I only bring one lens with me. Until now it has been the 18-55 WR because of the weather sealing and the size.

I´m considering the DA* 16-50 because of better IQ, but I´m a little scared about the bulk of lens.
I want something much better than the kit-lens and that's why I don´t consider the DA 18-135mm.

I just want to hear some experiences about the bulk of the DA*16-50.

Kind Regards

MortenV

[psychdoc]

The 16-50 is just too big and heavy.

The Tamron 17-50 is much better except that is not weather resistant and the build quality makes it look like a kit lens. But it is a very sharp lens. And oh yes, it is a heck of a lot cheaper!

[ruggiex]

I brought this lens to my honeymoon last month for a 3 weeks trip to Taiwan and Bali. It's a very versatile lens - indoors, outdoors, sun or rain. I picked it over the 18-135, which I also own, because I knew I'd need that f2.8 about 40% of the time.

The lens is heavy so it is not very comfortable if I let the camera strap hang solely on my neck. I usually just hold it in my hand with the neck strap wrapped around my hand like a hand strap, or carry it on my shoulder, or carry it across my chest like a messenger bag. With the wide end being 16mm I didn't need to bring my 15mm (plus it would rain sporadically). It worked out for this trip but for shorter trips where I don't need f2.8 I'd most likely bring 18-135mm. That lens performs very well in the 20-60 range and feels so much lighter.

[MortenV]

I should have written that I already have the Tamron 17-50.
I don´t like it that much. To me its flimsy build and not very good in dusty conditions. Dust very easy gets inside the lens.
My copy also suffer from inconsistent metering on my K-5. At 2.8 it's overexposing and at 11 it´s underexposing.

[Joojoo2010]

Tamron 17-50+Da 55-300 WR and u have good lightweight travel kit covering 17-300mm with 2 lenses and good enough IQ. Tamron is also f2.8 zoom and that may be useful.

Edit. Ok, u nt like tamron 17-50. Sigma 17-70 is great lens also.

[Na Horuk]

Well, if you want fast aperture, wide angle to slight tele zoom, and WR, then the DA* 16-50 is the main contender.
Maybe look at the DA 20-40mm ltd that will soon hit the shelves, but it has a more limited zoom range and aperture.

The only other Pentax zoom in this range is the Pentax 16-45mm f4, which some people really like, but is no longer available as new. Might be a tad more compact.

[john5100]

I use my DA* 16-50mm most of the time and I just love it. If you want light and versatile try primes 21mm, 35mm, and 70mm which would make a great travel kit. Na Horuk is right about the 20-40mm too.

[NZ_Ross]

I use a DA*16-50 and DA55-300 (so to be upgraded to the WR) combo for travelling with my K5. I have a Crumpler 5 bag and also chuck a prime in - usually the DA15 or DA21.

I have found the DA*16-50 extremely versatile - I like to look at historic architecture, and world heritage sites when travelling, as well as landscapes etc. When inside dimly lit large buildings (where you are not allowed to use a flash or a tripod/monopod) the DA*16-50 comes into it's own.

The WR is great when you only have one day at a spot and it is wet.

There are always trade-offs, the main on being the weight of the lens. I have got used to it, an it doesn't bother me - I like the advantages the lens gives me.

I will have a look at the DA20-40 Limited myself when I get the chance, as it provides another option - the restriction is again in low light, and maybe a little bit of lack of reach.

[abmj]

My travel lenses have to be compact and reasonably light, since I wind up carrying them on my back everywhere. For that reason, I leave the heavier glass at home and travel with either the 18-135 (which is MUCH better than the kit lens) plus the 50 f/1.4 or the Olympus m4/3 kit.

[cali92rs]

I know this is very subjective, but i have no problem travelling with my 16-50mm. I use an op/tech bandolier type strap so i don't carry it around my neck. In fact, I wouldnt really want to carry any dslr around my neck for an extended time even fitted with a tiny pancake lens.

[Rondec]

Sounds to me like you want the 16-50. Its two weaknesses from my standpoint are size and it is prone to flare. Otherwise, it is a solid lens that is quite sharp and has really nice colors.

[Canada_Rockies]

I use my 16-50 on a K10d with grip and Pentax hand strap. I no longer carry cameras around my neck. The weight seems easier to carry with the heavy battery in the grip on the bottom of the camera. Without my grip, I really notice the weight of the lens, but I don't really notice the weight of the combination. My wife hates it. However she is expecting her new X-5 to arrive Friday, so no more competition for the K10.

[MortenV]

Thank You for all your replies!.
I´ve just bought a DA*16-50 from another member of Pentax Forums. I look forward to receive it.

Best Regards
MortenV

[NZ_Ross]

Thank You for all your replies!.
I´ve just bought a DA*16-50 from another member of Pentax Forums. I look forward to receive it.

Best Regards
MortenV

Enjoy

[Sandy Hancock]

Thank You for all your replies!.
I´ve just bought a DA*16-50 from another member of Pentax Forums. I look forward to receive it.

Best Regards
MortenV

Excellent decision. The DA*16-50 is a grossly under-rated lens. You'll love it.

The 16-50 is just too big and heavy.

LOL. Try a 24-70/2.8 on a full frame sometime....