[nostatic]

I keep looking for an excuse to replace the 16-45 but am unable to. I shot with it in Yosemite and results were stunning as usual. To me it is *the* no-brainer lens to have with this system. And I shoot plenty with it indoors in poor light...that's what shake reduction and iso1600 is for.

[AlexL]

I have read issues with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and not much positive.

I just got my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 but haven't had the chance to really test it yet. I'm going to do some test photos during my lunch, but I honestly don't think I can do any kind of extensive test until Saturday.

I took some test photos around my apartment late last night and it seemed fine, but those under less than ideal test conditions.

[ycl]

I've got to get a wide zoom as I have a couple of wedding booked for June. I've tried 2 DA*16-50's and both were returned. Then I got a Sigma f2.8 (non-macro) and wasn't impressed with the sharpness with this either, Frankly the Kit lens was just as good if not better.

2) Try and find a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro and hope.


Any other ideas or lenses I've overlooked?

The obvious answer would be to try the newer version of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (w/the 'macro' designation). I bought one -- after having read numerous reviews saying that the newer version is much better than the old one -- and it's a perfectly good zoom -- good IQ from f/2.8 at nearly all focal lengths (a bit weak at 50, I'd say) & quite well-built (and it doesn't have that awkward "two-tier" zoom construction that the DA* 16-50 has).

And why do you say "hope"? I have not heard nearly as many complaints about back- or fron-focusing or decentering w/this lens as I have with the DA* 16-50 or the new Tammy 17-50. There will, of course, be some lemons. But it's all relative ...

[frank]

The DA*1650 (a good copy) might be slightly soft wide open, but it's definitely sharper than the DA1645 at F4. That's my experience.

[Peter Zack]

Sorry YCl, It's just been a bit frustrating since I've wasted some shipping $$ on 2 DA*'s and the Sigma 18-50 non macro. But you're right that the Macro 18-50 is by all reports a good lens.

Well I had some time this afternoon to go to a store and they had the DA16-45, DA*16-50 and the Sigma 17-50 f2.8-4.5. I got a chance to try all 3 for a few minutes. The DA* they had was a decent copy from what I could tell with a few test shots but seemed to BF a bit (or am I now too paranoid to be objective?). The 16-45 performed almost as well as the DA* wide open but there is a difference. The surprise was the Sigma. It's slower than the other 2 at the long end but I'm more interested in the wide end. It was the sharpest of the 3 from what I could see.
The DA16-45 is a nice lens without question and at the wide end (where I'd use it the most), the sharpness differences would be somewhat lost in the large DOF a wide lens has even wide open. But I'm assuming that this lens is better closed down a stop or so.

The quick test shots below are each followed by a 100% crop. and have only been resized
Da*16-50 f2.8 50mm ISO320

100%crop You can see that the front pins should be sharp but the middle ones look sharper.

DA16-45 f4 45mm ISO 640

100% crop

[Peter Zack]

And here's the Sigma. These are unscientific of course and I'd like to test all three with a test chart but they were all taken under the same conditions and the focus point was the same spot. Right where the cork board met the black trim.
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 @f4.5 70mm ISO 640

100%crop

[jsherman999]

Peter, the sigma shot was taken at 70mm, the others at 50 & 45mm. There's a huge advantage in resolution at 70mm vs 45/50, you'd expect the sigma crop to be much sharper if the distance to subject was the same.

A better test would have been to keep the sigma at 50mm.


.

[frank]

It's pretty much inline w/ my experience on these three lenses too. The Sigma 1770 is surprisingly good on the tele end. But it's about one stop slower than the DA*1650 at 50mm. You should take a shot at F4 or 4.5 w/ the DA*1650 and compare it against the other two.

The other thing I found out is that the DA*1650 works alot better on K20D camera than the K10D, especially at the wide end. It doesn't have as much BF problem w/ the K20D. Same goes to some of my other lenses too as I reported here:
K20D AF Accuracy Improvement Over K10D/K100D : Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[Peter Zack]

jsherman999, you're right about the zoom and the effect. I wanted to see what the extreme end looked like. Zooms typically are thier worst at the ends of the range and to keep things equal I shot them all the same as far as fully zoomed in. I wish I had more time but the store was busy and I could tell I'd used my 'demo period up' in the 30+ minutes I was there.

Frank, you are correct and I shot a few pics with the K20D and the DA*. They looked very good. But I didn't have time to test all three lenses on the body to see if the results translated the same.

[rparmar]

I have not had the chance to directly compare with anything but the kit lens. But the 16-45mm does everything I need it to. And it's always seemed sharp enough from f/4. I really enjoy this lens.

This is ISO400 f/11 1/10s hand held at 16mm.



(c) 2008 Robin Parmar

[creampuff]

Whoa, rparmar looks like you've got a serious case of guitar buying addiction
Well if you're into buying guitars, can I recommend a relatively new Korean company called Dame. They make the sweetest guitars. Official Dame Website : Neo Classism

[rparmar]

Whoa, rparmar looks like you've got a serious case of guitar buying addiction

Actually I own only one guitar and it generally has no strings on it. I use it as a resonant board, usually with contact mics attached. Yes, I'm one of those odd sound artist dudes you keep reading about. (Or not!)

These are just some of the instruments used by the Maynooth Electric Guitar Array at a recent Soundings gig. Soundings is a series of sound art performances I co-curate here in Ireland. I also design the web site and posters, so check out that link for something vaguely photo related.

[rparmar]

Oh yeah, and on the 45mm end of the scale here's a Pentaxium shot. Might have been even clearer if the wind hadn't been so fierce. (Some foreground twigs blowing madly.)



(c) 2008 Robin Parmar

[Mike Bokeh]

Ah, two birds with one stone!
Here are two of my friends photographed with the 16-45 @ f4.0 @ 1/125 sec @ 45mm. Not bad for the lens being wide open.


Peter, I, like many others here love my 16-45! It's very sharp, and its zoom range will cover almost everything as far as a wedding is concerned. It's a little short for a head & shoulders portrait, but for a full-length or 3/4 bridal portrait, it'll be just fine.

When you're shooting outdoors, the f4.0 aperture shouldn't matter, and when you're indoors, you'll be using flash most of the time. It has a little trouble focusing in very dim light, but when it does this, I just ask people to move to a more well lit location.

And I agree with the others who've said that the colors are very good!
16-45 @ 45mm @ f16 @ 1/4 sec.


It's a great lens, Peter; I recommend it highly.

Mike

[Mike Bokeh]

Here's another shot @ f4.0.

I try not to shoot in harsh, midday light, but sometimes you have no choice.
16-45 @ 34mm @ f4.0 @ 1/4000 sec


Mike