[Peter Zack]

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

I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, FA50 f1.4 and 31mm Ltd. I just need a wider lens to round out the shooting kit for events.

So It boils down to these:
1) DA16-45 f4 and just put up with the slower speed but no one complains about this lens.
2) Try and find a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro and hope.
3) Tamron 17-70 f2.8-4 which sounds like a decent lens but is it really that sharp?
4) gamble on another DA*16-50 and if it BF's again, send the K10 and lens into Pentax Canada and hope they can correct the setup in time for mid June.

Any other ideas or lenses I've overlooked?

---

Last edited by Peter Zack; 04-10-2008 at 07:35 AM.

[patrickt]

Since you're down to 28mm now, I'll just mention the 12-34mm zoom. I really enjoy mine.

[vievetrick]

Peter, I love my 16-45 more then any other in my kit. It is what I use almost esclusively when shooting an event indoors or out. I have been considering for a short time the 16-50, but I do not have a need for anything faster when indoors as I usually use a flash. If I need faster and no flash I have a FA50mm 1.4 and have never worried I missed the 46-49mm range. I have decided to spend the money on the DA300 when it comes out. It is a lenght I do not have. So my suggestion is the 16-45 and don't look back.

[Peter Zack]

Since you're down to 28mm now, I'll just mention the 12-34mm zoom. I really enjoy mine.

I assume you mean the DA 12-24mm f4. I'm considering that one as well or the Sigma version. I'd Like a longer range if possible since one lens would be on each body. 70-200 on one and a wider lens on the other to avoid lens changes when things are moving quickly.

Peter, I love my 16-45 more then any other in my kit. It is what I use almost esclusively when shooting an event indoors or out. I have been considering for a short time the 16-50, but I do not have a need for anything faster when indoors as I usually use a flash. If I need faster and no flash I have a FA50mm 1.4 and have never worried I missed the 46-49mm range. I have decided to spend the money on the DA300 when it comes out. It is a lenght I do not have. So my suggestion is the 16-45 and don't look back.

This seems to be the best option from all the posts I've seen. This lens seems good even wide open and it is wider than the 18mm's on my list. Most of the images I've seen from this lens appear to be as good as the good shots from the DA*. At the current price it's attractive as well.

[Peter Zack]

I just did a Pbase search of images for the 16-45mm. Pat what's your experience with this lens wide open. The posts on Pbase seem very good at f4. Vigenetting/corners wide open?

[Nesster]

It is a fantastic lens - the slow max aperture mainly affects the AF in low light for me. And mine tends to underexpose on my K100D.

But it is sharp from the get go. While primes (and even the old Tamron Adaptall SP 35-80 2.8-3.8) ultimately outresolve it, by themselves the photos leave nothing to be desired. The color tone especially is delicious.

[squarerigger]

I own the 16-45 and find it to be a very good lens. I am not put off by the f4 as I primarily use it outside. Would not part with it for anything else currently on the market for the price.

[k100d]

check the Photozone review Peter, I think they liked it but there are some PF issues IIRC

[Eliasson]

I had it and sold it, planning to buy a wideangle zoom instead. now, while i´m saving up to the 12-24 i miss my 16-45 EXTREMLY much. Haven´t tested anything that had the sharpness 16-45 got wideopen. I sold it because i wanted those extra mm´s from 16 and down, but now i´m stucked with the 18-55 for wideangle wich you can´t even begin to compare with the 16-45´s performance on 16mm. I´d say, go for it. By the 16-45/4, Its weakest spot is in 45 mm, imo.

[selfnoise]

I just ordered one of these so I'm really glad to see these comments. My main deciding factor was the reputation, plus the fact that the lens has really come down in price.

[daacon]

Peter don't have it - (I do have the DA 12-24 though and that is a keeper ... for now ) and have the same thought process as you.

Unsure on the DA* 16-50 really need to buy it new from a retail outlet in case of issues which of course here in Canada means mucho $$$$. I was looking at the Sigma 18-50 interesting you were not satisfied with the images.

Was kind of hoping the Pentax 17-70 came out soon , but who knows. There is a Tamron 17-70 that has been released and you mentioned - unknown entity I agree don't think f4 would be a factor. So I am thinking the 16-45 is a known performer, issues are minor and correctable, price is very reasonable.

Edit ahhh I see the Sigma was the non macro version. I hear good things about the Macro version - Online Camera Canada has it , I have bought a couple lens from them 3 day (once in stock if not available) shipping flat $15.00 would deal with again. They are very very slow to Email responses , however there is an 800 number. I call see if they have it , if not when can they get it , then order online if I am interested.

[jmdeegan]

I am actually debating offloading my 16-45 and going back to having the kit lens, for this reason:
I find myself using the super wides (10-20 and 10-17) or the 50-135 more than any other lens i own. for as little as I use the 16-45, I am really wondering if I would be better served by selling it, relying on the adequate kit lens (which I never really pushed as much as some of our more gifted posters here have) and putting the money to use elsewhere.

Mostly, this is me reflecting on having bought beyond my needs. I need to spend more time on practice, than money on better glass.

[barondla]

16-45 was lens that bought with my new DS. Still have it and love it. At 45mm it is close to the sharpness of the A50 1.7. Not quite as contrasty though. Trouble free. Some people hate the zoom getting longer at wide setting. It will block the builtin flash. Who cares? Will also under expose about .3-.5 steps. Use exposure comp. Love the lens at 16mm. Also love constant aperture - great for manual exposure users. Only thing that might convince me to sell it is picking up 12-24.
thanks
barondla

[vievetrick]

I just did a Pbase search of images for the 16-45mm. Pat what's your experience with this lens wide open. The posts on Pbase seem very good at f4. Vigenetting/corners wide open?

I have never had an issue with Vigenetting. I have to check around at home if I have any shots at or around f/4 . For now you can check here PENTAX Photo Gallery the Pentax Gallery then sort by lens chose the 16-45 for other shots with the lens (none mine ;( )

Also found this link Flickr: Pentax SMCPDA 16-45mm f/4.0 group specifically for the lens

[creampuff]

It's cheap and good, what more do you need?

A recent shot with it. I'm happy with the details.

DA 16-45mm 1/15 sec at f/5.6 handheld