My newest gem 16-45 f/4

ClinchShots · 03-28-2014, 08:00 AM

Bought this lens from the marketplace after viewing what it could do on Flikr

I had a wedding to take last weekend and decided to try it out on my second body.

Lets just say I didn't want shoot with anything else.

It was wide enough for me to get in close, had brilliant colors, and delivered everything I could ever want in a lens.

just wanted to tip my hat to this gem and I can't wait to see what it does this weekend in Texas when I shoot my second wedding with it.

Pics will roll once I dive into my edit.

Last edited by ClinchShots; 03-28-2014 at 08:44 AM.

jimr-pdx · 03-28-2014, 08:25 AM

That's the lens that convinced me to go with Pentax. I still hope for a WR non-* lens that does most of its work, like maybe the roadmap DA zoom.

**TER-OR** · 03-28-2014, 08:37 AM

It's a very useful lens indoors, given enough light to not require a flash. I've been using a Sigma 28mm f1.8 more frequently but the 16-45 is nice. I used to use it as a general walkaround, but now use the 18-135 for its greater reach and WR. But if I'm at a conservatory or something, that 16-45 is in my bag for sure.

ClinchShots · 03-28-2014, 08:45 AM

dropped one of my photos with it.

---------- Post added 03-28-14 at 10:54 AM ----------

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

That's the lens that convinced me to go with Pentax. I still hope for a WR non-* lens that does most of its work, like maybe the roadmap DA zoom.

a WR version would be perfect!

**pacerr** · 03-28-2014, 09:12 AM

The DA 16-45 was the lens that introduced me to UWA after 30 years of 35mm+ FL full frame shooting. My only down side is the vignetting at WA FL's when using flash in rare occasions. For available light, landscape and still life it's hard to fault and works exceptionally great with the older CCD sensors IME. It's a fine, low cost upgrade to the DA 18-55.

ChristianRock · 03-28-2014, 09:53 AM

There's been lots of raving about this lens, and it always ends up in my LBA list.

It covers the full frame circle from 22mm and up, I think. 24mm for sure, which is another reason I'm considering it in the future (I also shoot with a pentax ZX-M).

**TER-OR** · 03-28-2014, 09:56 AM

When I bought my used K10D years ago I immediately bought the 16-45 just based on reviews vs. the original kit lens. And since I still have more filters for that lens, like a good polarizer, it still gets used.

The kiss picture is a keeper.

lesmore49 · 03-28-2014, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by TER-OR

When I bought my used K10D years ago I immediately bought the 16-45 just based on reviews vs. the original kit lens. And since I still have more filters for that lens, like a good polarizer, it still gets used.

.

I did the same. When I bought my K10D new in Nov. 2007, I followed up and bought my first digital lens in Dec, 2006...a 16-45. Great lens.

Arjay Bee · 03-28-2014, 09:04 PM

In Australia the kit on the DL2 was the Sigma. Soooo I bought a 16-45 and like the OP have done several weddings with it. Good lens for the money.

tibbitts · 03-29-2014, 11:54 AM

I was very happy with my 16-45, and particularly pleased that it had those extra 2mm below 18mm. But then either the front component wobble got worse or my bodies became higher-resolution (well, the latter definitely happened), and I could see that the wobble was affecting the resolution. If you get a copy without the wobble, you should be very happy with the 16-45.

03-28-2014, 08:00 AM	#1
ClinchShots Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 437	My newest gem 16-45 f/4 Bought this lens from the marketplace after viewing what it could do on Flikr I had a wedding to take last weekend and decided to try it out on my second body. Lets just say I didn't want shoot with anything else. It was wide enough for me to get in close, had brilliant colors, and delivered everything I could ever want in a lens. just wanted to tip my hat to this gem and I can't wait to see what it does this weekend in Texas when I shoot my second wedding with it. Pics will roll once I dive into my edit. Last edited by ClinchShots; 03-28-2014 at 08:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
My Used eBay 16-45 f.4 Malfunctioned !	DavidSKAF3	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	12-17-2013 01:52 PM
Advice Wanted RE: Pentax 16-45 f/4	DavidSKAF3	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-27-2013 06:53 PM
Optimum K-5 / 16-45 f/4 Settings	DavidSKAF3	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-24-2013 09:27 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 16-45 f/4 DA lens	treebeard	Sold Items	2	01-23-2013 02:18 PM
I sure miss my DA 16-45 f/4	Ed in GA	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	01-11-2008 01:11 PM

03-28-2014, 08:25 AM	#2
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	That's the lens that convinced me to go with Pentax. I still hope for a WR non-* lens that does most of its work, like maybe the roadmap DA zoom.

03-28-2014, 08:37 AM	#3
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	It's a very useful lens indoors, given enough light to not require a flash. I've been using a Sigma 28mm f1.8 more frequently but the 16-45 is nice. I used to use it as a general walkaround, but now use the 18-135 for its greater reach and WR. But if I'm at a conservatory or something, that 16-45 is in my bag for sure.

03-28-2014, 08:45 AM	#4
ClinchShots Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 437 Original Poster	dropped one of my photos with it. ---------- Post added 03-28-14 at 10:54 AM ---------- Originally posted by jimr-pdx That's the lens that convinced me to go with Pentax. I still hope for a WR non-* lens that does most of its work, like maybe the roadmap DA zoom. a WR version would be perfect!

03-28-2014, 09:12 AM	#5
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	The DA 16-45 was the lens that introduced me to UWA after 30 years of 35mm+ FL full frame shooting. My only down side is the vignetting at WA FL's when using flash in rare occasions. For available light, landscape and still life it's hard to fault and works exceptionally great with the older CCD sensors IME. It's a fine, low cost upgrade to the DA 18-55.

03-28-2014, 09:53 AM	#6
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	There's been lots of raving about this lens, and it always ends up in my LBA list. It covers the full frame circle from 22mm and up, I think. 24mm for sure, which is another reason I'm considering it in the future (I also shoot with a pentax ZX-M).

03-28-2014, 09:56 AM	#7
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	When I bought my used K10D years ago I immediately bought the 16-45 just based on reviews vs. the original kit lens. And since I still have more filters for that lens, like a good polarizer, it still gets used. The kiss picture is a keeper.

03-28-2014, 07:20 PM	#8
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,344	Originally posted by TER-OR When I bought my used K10D years ago I immediately bought the 16-45 just based on reviews vs. the original kit lens. And since I still have more filters for that lens, like a good polarizer, it still gets used. . I did the same. When I bought my K10D new in Nov. 2007, I followed up and bought my first digital lens in Dec, 2006...a 16-45. Great lens.

03-28-2014, 09:04 PM	#9
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	In Australia the kit on the DL2 was the Sigma. Soooo I bought a 16-45 and like the OP have done several weddings with it. Good lens for the money.

03-29-2014, 11:54 AM	#10
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	I was very happy with my 16-45, and particularly pleased that it had those extra 2mm below 18mm. But then either the front component wobble got worse or my bodies became higher-resolution (well, the latter definitely happened), and I could see that the wobble was affecting the resolution. If you get a copy without the wobble, you should be very happy with the 16-45.