Please create a review! 16-85 WR vs 20-40 WR

Blacknight659 · 12-16-2014, 04:47 AM

I know both of the lenses are on the market and are probably happily attached to someone's camera. Undoubtedly, Pentax Forums will make a comparison but I was hoping someone could provide some personal insight on these lenses and their features while

1. Size and weight (do you have a side by side picture? Maybe attached to a camera?)
2. Useful Range VS. Aperture
3. Physical differences and their +/-

Why would I impatiently be wanting this comparison you ask? I am planning on buying a decent all around lens that is light, compact, bright and weather resistant. At the moment, the 20-40 Limited is looking good with only two downsides... Price and zoom range. My goal is to have whichever lens I buy attached to my camera at all times. I will be using this lens for backpacking, landscapes, and street photography. As there is no perfect lens, I would like to make the best purchase possible.

Docrwm · 12-16-2014, 04:59 AM

The 16-85 started shipping ...err...yesterday.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/282799-da-1...-shipping.html

Blacknight659 · 12-16-2014, 05:18 AM

My mistake, I thought it was already shipping due to this LINK. Also, I saw a post a few days ago with sample photos though I can't find it at this time. I guess Ill just have to wait!

flaviopetrone · 12-16-2014, 05:22 AM

It is too early for a review, I think that you need to wait a little bit more.
Anyway it is more than 500 grams and about 10 cm in length, so it is not exactly a little and light lens.

JinDesu · 12-16-2014, 05:48 AM

I don't think people who buy the DA 20-40 are going to buy the 16-85 and vice versa, unless someone has quite a bit of money. For example, I was looking at the 16-85, but when the DA 20-40 dropped in price over the holidays (well, it's still dropped for now), I went and got it instead.

bdery · 12-16-2014, 05:53 AM

I'm pretty sure the review will compare it to the 18-55, 18-135 and 20-40. I'd be willing to write that review, gladly!

**woodywesty** · 12-16-2014, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Blacknight659

I know both of the lenses are on the market and are probably happily attached to someone's camera. Undoubtedly, Pentax Forums will make a comparison but I was hoping someone could provide some personal insight on these lenses and their features while

1. Size and weight (do you have a side by side picture? Maybe attached to a camera?)
2. Useful Range VS. Aperture
3. Physical differences and their +/-

Why would I impatiently be wanting this comparison you ask? I am planning on buying a decent all around lens that is light, compact, bright and weather resistant. At the moment, the 20-40 Limited is looking good with only two downsides... Price and zoom range. My goal is to have whichever lens I buy attached to my camera at all times. I will be using this lens for backpacking, landscapes, and street photography. As there is no perfect lens, I would like to make the best purchase possible.

The DA*16-50 is still marked down over $400 to $878 which is the lowest I've ever seen it. It does cost more than the others but it is a very sharp lens for a zoom.
Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video

stevebrot · 12-16-2014, 08:07 AM - **1 Like**

You should throw in a comparison with the DA* 60-250 as well. After all they are all zooms.

Steve

ChristianRock · 12-16-2014, 08:09 AM - **2 Likes**

Apples and oranges?

The comparison that makes sense is with the 18-135 and 17-70.

normhead · 12-16-2014, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Apples and oranges?

The comparison that makes sense is with the 18-135 and 17-70.

Definitely, no ƒ2.8 or faster lenses should be included. That's a whole different class of lens.

Blacknight659 · 12-16-2014, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Definitely, no ƒ2.8 or faster lenses should be included. That's a whole different class of lens.

agreed

ChristianRock · 12-16-2014, 08:39 AM

And the range is completely different. The 50-135 has almost as much overlap with the 16-85 as the 20-40 does! It makes no sense to compare ranges that are so different.

Konstanta · 12-16-2014, 01:42 PM

I think that ideally, in comparison with the new 16-85 should participate 18-135, Sigma 17-70 Contemp and * 16-50 and 16-45.

cbope · 12-16-2014, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Konstanta

I think that ideally, in comparison with the new 16-85 should participate 18-135, Sigma 17-70 Contemp and * 16-50 and 16-45.

Sorry, I don't get the comparison of variable aperture long range zooms to much shorter range fixed aperture zooms. Different classes of lenses, imho...

The DA 16-85 would have to be mind-blowing for me to even consider replacing my DA* 16-50 with it, and I don't believe that's going to be the case.

Edit: The Sigma 17-70 C is a valid comparison, as is the DA 18-135.

northcoastgreg · 12-17-2014, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by cbope

Sorry, I don't get the comparison of variable aperture long range zooms to much shorter range fixed aperture zooms. Different classes of lenses, imho...

Although it's absolutely true that these are different classes of lenses, and that many photographers, particularly those that absolutely need f2.8 in their zoom, will not care how the slower zooms perform. However, if you're a landscape photographer looking for the lens that performs the best at f8 regardless of weight, size, zoom range or aperture, then a comparison involving all zooms would be of much interest. At one point, I seriously considered getting the DA* 16-50, even though I would rarely, if ever, have used the f2.8, for the simple reason that it seemed the very best standard APS-C zoom lens for the K-mount. In the end, reports of decentered copies along with all the horrors of the assorted SDM woes, persuaded me to go in a different direction.

Originally posted by cbope

The DA 16-85 would have to be mind-blowing for me to even consider replacing my DA* 16-50 with it, and I don't believe that's going to be the case.

Except for those whose minds are easily blown, I doubt anyone's going to find the DA 16-85 mind-blowing. Nonetheless, I think it will likely prove a very good lens, with performance coming close, though not quite equaling, the DA* 16-50 (at comparable apertures/focal lengths).

As to the original question of the thread, the DA 20-40 vs the DA 16-85, if I had deep enough pockets, I'd get them both, as they both have uses, depending on the situation (I would not, to be sure, ever carry both of them with me at the same time). But if I could only get one, I'd get the DA 20-40, as the shorter lens involves fewer compromises.

12-16-2014, 04:47 AM	#1
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	Please create a review! 16-85 WR vs 20-40 WR I know both of the lenses are on the market and are probably happily attached to someone's camera. Undoubtedly, Pentax Forums will make a comparison but I was hoping someone could provide some personal insight on these lenses and their features while 1. Size and weight (do you have a side by side picture? Maybe attached to a camera?) 2. Useful Range VS. Aperture 3. Physical differences and their +/- Why would I impatiently be wanting this comparison you ask? I am planning on buying a decent all around lens that is light, compact, bright and weather resistant. At the moment, the 20-40 Limited is looking good with only two downsides... Price and zoom range. My goal is to have whichever lens I buy attached to my camera at all times. I will be using this lens for backpacking, landscapes, and street photography. As there is no perfect lens, I would like to make the best purchase possible.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 100mm macro WR vs Non-WR	OldNoob	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	07-04-2022 05:23 AM
For Sale - Sold: HD Pentax 20-40 mm F2.8-4 WR & 50-200 mm F4-5.6 WR lenses	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	6	09-12-2014 06:02 AM
The DA limited is 20-40? and WR?!	LFLee	Pentax News and Rumors	1331	02-13-2014 10:55 PM
HD DA 20-40 mm f/2.8-4.0 ED Limited DC WR review on LensTip	jogiba	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-08-2014 08:29 PM
Pentax 20-40 mm f/2,8-4 ED Limited DC WR is on it's way !	dodel	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	6	12-13-2013 02:48 AM

12-16-2014, 04:59 AM	#2
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	The 16-85 started shipping ...err...yesterday. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/282799-da-1...-shipping.html

12-16-2014, 05:18 AM	#3
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731 Original Poster	My mistake, I thought it was already shipping due to this LINK. Also, I saw a post a few days ago with sample photos though I can't find it at this time. I guess Ill just have to wait!

12-16-2014, 05:22 AM	#4
flaviopetrone Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Reggio Emilia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,153	It is too early for a review, I think that you need to wait a little bit more. Anyway it is more than 500 grams and about 10 cm in length, so it is not exactly a little and light lens.

12-16-2014, 05:48 AM	#5
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	I don't think people who buy the DA 20-40 are going to buy the 16-85 and vice versa, unless someone has quite a bit of money. For example, I was looking at the 16-85, but when the DA 20-40 dropped in price over the holidays (well, it's still dropped for now), I went and got it instead.

12-16-2014, 05:53 AM	#6
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,360	I'm pretty sure the review will compare it to the 18-55, 18-135 and 20-40. I'd be willing to write that review, gladly!

12-16-2014, 06:35 AM	#7
woodywesty Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Northern Wisconsin Posts: 725	Originally posted by Blacknight659 I know both of the lenses are on the market and are probably happily attached to someone's camera. Undoubtedly, Pentax Forums will make a comparison but I was hoping someone could provide some personal insight on these lenses and their features while 1. Size and weight (do you have a side by side picture? Maybe attached to a camera?) 2. Useful Range VS. Aperture 3. Physical differences and their +/- Why would I impatiently be wanting this comparison you ask? I am planning on buying a decent all around lens that is light, compact, bright and weather resistant. At the moment, the 20-40 Limited is looking good with only two downsides... Price and zoom range. My goal is to have whichever lens I buy attached to my camera at all times. I will be using this lens for backpacking, landscapes, and street photography. As there is no perfect lens, I would like to make the best purchase possible. The DA16-50 is still marked down over $400 to $878 which is the lowest I've ever seen it. It does cost more than the others but it is a very sharp lens for a zoom. Pentax SMCP-DA 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video

12-16-2014, 08:07 AM - 1 Like	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	You should throw in a comparison with the DA* 60-250 as well. After all they are all zooms. Steve

12-16-2014, 08:09 AM - 2 Likes	#9
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Apples and oranges? The comparison that makes sense is with the 18-135 and 17-70.

12-16-2014, 08:14 AM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ChristianRock Apples and oranges? The comparison that makes sense is with the 18-135 and 17-70. Definitely, no ƒ2.8 or faster lenses should be included. That's a whole different class of lens.

12-16-2014, 08:36 AM	#11
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead Definitely, no ƒ2.8 or faster lenses should be included. That's a whole different class of lens. agreed

12-16-2014, 08:39 AM	#12
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	And the range is completely different. The 50-135 has almost as much overlap with the 16-85 as the 20-40 does! It makes no sense to compare ranges that are so different.

12-16-2014, 01:42 PM	#13
Konstanta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Kiev, Ukraine Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 480	I think that ideally, in comparison with the new 16-85 should participate 18-135, Sigma 17-70 Contemp and * 16-50 and 16-45.

12-16-2014, 02:31 PM	#14
cbope Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Helsinki Posts: 664	Originally posted by Konstanta I think that ideally, in comparison with the new 16-85 should participate 18-135, Sigma 17-70 Contemp and * 16-50 and 16-45. Sorry, I don't get the comparison of variable aperture long range zooms to much shorter range fixed aperture zooms. Different classes of lenses, imho... The DA 16-85 would have to be mind-blowing for me to even consider replacing my DA* 16-50 with it, and I don't believe that's going to be the case. Edit: The Sigma 17-70 C is a valid comparison, as is the DA 18-135.

12-17-2014, 09:39 AM	#15
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,174	Originally posted by cbope Sorry, I don't get the comparison of variable aperture long range zooms to much shorter range fixed aperture zooms. Different classes of lenses, imho... Although it's absolutely true that these are different classes of lenses, and that many photographers, particularly those that absolutely need f2.8 in their zoom, will not care how the slower zooms perform. However, if you're a landscape photographer looking for the lens that performs the best at f8 regardless of weight, size, zoom range or aperture, then a comparison involving all zooms would be of much interest. At one point, I seriously considered getting the DA* 16-50, even though I would rarely, if ever, have used the f2.8, for the simple reason that it seemed the very best standard APS-C zoom lens for the K-mount. In the end, reports of decentered copies along with all the horrors of the assorted SDM woes, persuaded me to go in a different direction. Originally posted by cbope The DA 16-85 would have to be mind-blowing for me to even consider replacing my DA* 16-50 with it, and I don't believe that's going to be the case. Except for those whose minds are easily blown, I doubt anyone's going to find the DA 16-85 mind-blowing. Nonetheless, I think it will likely prove a very good lens, with performance coming close, though not quite equaling, the DA* 16-50 (at comparable apertures/focal lengths). As to the original question of the thread, the DA 20-40 vs the DA 16-85, if I had deep enough pockets, I'd get them both, as they both have uses, depending on the situation (I would not, to be sure, ever carry both of them with me at the same time). But if I could only get one, I'd get the DA 20-40, as the shorter lens involves fewer compromises.