[Ahab]

I've had all three. Got rid of the Sigma soon after purchasing as it just didn't have the image pop I was looking for. Still have the 16-45 for bright scenes and my favorite the Tammy.

[seventysixersfan]

wow, the Tamron 17-50 is clobbering the other two in the poll so far. Guess I should think about getting one someday and comparing it with my DA 16-45 to find out what, if anything, I'm missing!

[yellowbrick]

I had and have the DA18-135, and went this way by buying the Tamron lens.
Even though it's a sharp and nice lens. After one year, I ended up deciding to sell the Tamron. because I think when I'm on zoom, having more reach and convenient of WR is more usable for me. and for those important shots, I have one of limiteds in my pocket/bag.
Also the DA18-135 is no slouch in that range! even wide open! and You just need to step it down to f/5.6 for very good sharpness.
and you have to step down the Tamron to f/4 for sharpness. and then for low light, I prefer my DA35ltd even the DA35 plasticy focuses and works better in low light condition.

Thank you for this opinion; I might just keep using the DA 18-135 for those times when I need a zoom and then use my primes for when I need utmost image quality and/or in lower lighting conditions.

---------- Post added 07-24-14 at 02:22 PM ----------

The 18-135mm is very good center, not so good corners, especially on the long end. I doubt very much that the lenses you mention will provide a significant improvement with the vast majority of pictures you are taking. I would get a second camera body used, like a k-r. Doesn't weigh a lot more than the 2.8 lenses, and allows you to use two different DA limiteds. Just a thought...

Thanks for the advice! I might end up skipping out on all three of these zooms and get a DSLR body to go along with my mirrorless K-01.

[audiobomber]

The 16-45 is better than the 18-55 kit lens, but it isn't that much better, and the f4 aperture is a bind. Sharp it is not!! Sharp-for-a-cheap zoom at a push, but it is no where near prime-sharp. The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since.

I own both. Your 16-45 is mis-calibrated or defective.

Thank you for this opinion; I might just keep using the DA 18-135 for those times when I need a zoom and then use my primes for when I need utmost image quality and/or in lower lighting conditions.

Thanks for the advice! I might end up skipping out on all three of these zooms and get a DSLR body to go along with my mirrorless K-01.

Sounds like an excellent plan. I'd go for a K-30 or K-50 ahead of a K-r though, for weather-resistance, larger, brighter OVF, faster handling and better IQ.

[seventysixersfan]

I own both. Your 16-45 is mis-calibrated or defective.

I agree. My DA 16-45 is in my opinion significantly better than my 18-55 WR kit lens. And it certainly is sharp, but I don't think anyone would claim it to be prime-sharp-- but how many zooms are that cost $200 used? And in my experience, my DA 16-45 is sharper than my DA 18-135.

I'd go for a K-30 or K-50 ahead of a K-r though, for weather-resistance, larger, brighter OVF, faster handling and better IQ.

agreed! I'm really happy with my K-50.

[lytrytyr]

I'm really happy with my K-50.

Me too.

It's let me reserve my old K-x bodies
for use in situations where the camera would be at risk,
or where small size really matters.

[Kayaker-J]

I've had all three. Got rid of the Sigma soon after purchasing as it just didn't have the image pop I was looking for. Still have the 16-45 for bright scenes and my favorite the Tammy.

I've mentioned gap filling between prime lenses here. Your "bright scenes" comment is interesting... vs. the Tamron's rendering in that case? How would you compare the two you kept in the "landscape" range between 16 or 17mm (I have the DA15 Ltd.) and 24 or 25mm (FA31 on the other side)?

[audiobomber]

I've mentioned gap filling between prime lenses here. Your "bright scenes" comment is interesting... vs. the Tamron's rendering in that case? How would you compare the two you kept in the "landscape" range between 16 or 17mm (I have the DA15 Ltd.) and 24 or 25mm (FA31 on the other side)?

Here's a full resolution comparison I did at wide angle and f/8, between my 18-135, 16-45 and 15mm Ltd. Click on the magnifying glass to pixel peep.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100586096103361553535/Comparo?authkey=Gv1sRgCLO...&noredirect=1#
The 16-45 is sharpest in the corners, the DA 15 has the most pop and the least aberrations.

DA 16-45mm @ 16mm, f/8


DA 15mm Limited, f/8

[yellowbrick]

Just a quick update on this old thread I started last July-- I recently picked up a used but excellent copy of the DA 16-45 for a real good price, and have been extremely happy with its performance on my K-01. Lightweight and sharp images, beautiful colors, and I especially like the extra wide angle it provides. It's a keeper!

[BrunoEVT]

The 16-45 is better than the 18-55 kit lens, but it isn't that much better, and the f4 aperture is a bind. Sharp it is not!! Sharp-for-a-cheap zoom at a push, but it is no where near prime-sharp. The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since.

I would strongly disagree!!

Ive been testing out this lens and it proved to be an awesome lens.

Check this pics and judge by yourselfs!

https://500px.com/photo/127212193/night-brings-the-best-on-this-town-by-bruno-macedo

https://500px.com/photo/123489741/my-city-awakes-by-bruno-macedo

[GlennG]

Check this pics and judge by yourselfs!

I checked out these two - VERY NICE! Thanks for sharing.

[kh1234567890]

The 16-45 is better than the 18-55 kit lens, but it isn't that much better, and the f4 aperture is a bind. Sharp it is not!! Sharp-for-a-cheap zoom at a push, but it is no where near prime-sharp. The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since.

Just for the record - It is sharp enough for me

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

I'm glad that the OP is happy with it. I am with mine.

[csa]

I've enjoyed this thread, and after reading it, looks like I may pickup a 16-45 to compare with my 18-55WR. I want something a little wider, so this may be the ticket, if I get a "sharp" copy!

Thanks everyone in this thread!

[seventysixersfan]

I sold my DA 16-45 a little while ago to fund a Tamron 28-75. While I love the images I am getting form the 28-75, and like the f/2.8 low light capability, I do miss the sharpness, bold colors, and wide-angle of the 16-45. But maybe someday I will get the DA 16-85 once it comes down in price a bit or shows up for sale used...

[normhead]

The no brainer in this group is definitely the Tamron 17-50.
I don't have the 16-45, I did use a friend's briefly... nothing really stands out in my mind. CA values are for me un-acceptable. Twice that of your 18-135.
Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

I did some test images here, yes, the zooms are not as good as the primes, but the difference is so insignificant, would you care?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

By the way, by far the best lens I tested that day was the Tamron 17-50, but I had some weird focussing issues during the test.

But I don't own a 16-45. Sigma 17-50, Pentax DA 16-50 or Pentax 16-85, so no access to may of the most popular lenses in this range. Nor do I have a 31 or 43 ltd, the kings in this range.

My favourite lens on my K01 is the 40XS that came with it, followed by the 21 ltd. for it's incredible flexibility. But if I were buying a lens today, for a K-01, I'd probably go for the new 18-50. It's collapsable to make it easier to carry in a pocket for travel. It would seem to be pretty much a custom lens for the K-01.