[paulnelson]

I understand 16-85 is WR when 17-70 isn't, and they are more or less the same dimension and weight.

Hi, for those of you who have tested the 16-85mm, did you have the opportunity to compare it with the 17-70mm f/4 ? is it better at wide angle ?
In terms of image quality why did/would you chose the 16-85 over it? thanks

[Sliver-Surfer]

I understand 16-85 is WR when 17-70 isn't, and they are more or less the same dimension and weight.

Hi, for those of you who have tested the 16-85mm, did you have the opportunity to compare it with the 17-70mm f/4 ? is it better at wide angle ?
In terms of image quality why did/would you chose the 16-85 over it? thanks

Did you have a look here already Pentax lens Database

[hcc]

I understand 16-85 is WR when 17-70 isn't, and they are more or less the same dimension and weight.

I suggest genuinely that you wait a couple of weeks. Adam will shortly test the 16-85mm WR and his in-depth review will definitely include comparisons with relevant lenses.

IMHO the 16-85mm has more than WR to offer. It provide a wider range of focal length. Yes, not by too much but still 16mm is noticeably wider than 17mm and 85 mm is longer than 70 mm. I also understand that it is a higher grade lens than the kit lens 18-55 and even the 18-135mm. I look forward to learn more on that lens....

Hope that my 5 cents will assist....

[DSims]

You'll definitely have to see some images from the new lens (unless you just want to get one and make those images yourself!). Otherwise it will be hard to judge well. I'd suggest seeing images in places other than just the review - i.e. those taken by owners too.


But I had the DA17-70/4, and it's a good lens. My hunch is I'd still choose it over the new one, because the newer one's f/3.5-5.6 aperture is slower, and generally lenses with variable aperture have lower Image Quality (they don't have to be so in theory, but in practice they generally are). Every constant f/4 (or f/3.5-4.5, for that matter) Pentax lens I've ever used has very good IQ. And specific lenses like the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 or F70-210/4-5.6 are also quite good. But a variable aperture lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at such a relatively short focal length is not a good sign. That generally isn't a design goal you start with when creating a premium lens.

The DA17-70 can be shot at f/4.5 throughout its range and deliver nice photos. The new lens won't be able to do that. While you could carefully study the output from your DA17-70 and determine exactly which focal lengths struggle a little at that aperture you could, but at that point you're getting awfully picky, IMO (and fairly picky too) and should be considering better lenses anyway. But I thought it was a great step up from the kit lens (DA18-55) and very satisfactory. I finally decided to get a DA*50-135 and a DA*16-50 - which I like better - but the DA17-70 was very handy until that time came.


The DA16-45/4 should also be considered if you don't need the longer end to be available in the same lens.

---

Last edited by DSims; 01-02-2015 at 12:40 AM.

[paulnelson]

Just a precision : my use is mainly wide angle, I use now an equivalent 28-118mm and shoot most of the time at the lowest focales.

Did you have a look here already Pentax lens Database

I did , I just spent last two days in lens reviews and databases...

I suggest genuinely that you wait a couple of weeks. Adam will shortly test the 16-85mm WR and his in-depth review will definitely include comparisons with relevant lenses.

I understand and I do agree... but I just can't wait any more to get my first reflex (and there is an cashback offer only until january the 10th, and I'd prefer start with a fully 100% compatible solid blablabla lens => pentax, WR)...
I read the review DA 16-85mm, wich looks ok for me since "my" more important is on wide angle

Thanks DSim for your comment, I have see some pictures taken by the 16-85 mainly K5 pentax da 16-85mm photo samplesl, but I found very difficult to decide on these how do they compare to 17-70 (and they were taken by a K-5 not K3)
[saw also : https://www.flickr.com/search/?tags=hd1685mm says K3 / 16-85]
I understand the point on f/4 vs f/3.5-5.6. But at the end it is about only one stop less than the 16-50 f/2.8 on the same range, not so awful for my use.
•16mm - 20mm = f/3.5
• 21mm - 30mm = f/4
• 31mm - 67mm = f/4.5
• 68mm - 85mm = f/5.6
Looks like many pentax fans are quite disapointed by this pentax choice for the news lens, but.... "you can't always get what you want" (RS)

Clock ticking, so either I go to the cheapest first, with the 18-55 WR kit and wait to get a better lens (new or used), or I go directly to a "correct" first lens and will have more time to 1) learn and practice K3 and 2) whatch out for good used opportunities.
Up to now my thinking is :
- 18-135mm WR (kit) => in that case I'd probably go for the cheaper 18-55 kit knowing that I'll look for better lenses in a very close future
- 18-270 : I'm convinced by the review I'd prefer the 18-135 WR over it (or a not pentax equivalent) so... see above
- 16-50 f/2.8 => pentax forum reviews tends to show the tamron would be a better start but not WR and not Pentax
- 12-24mm f/4 or 20-40 f/2.8-4 : more expensive, less polyvalent, (12-24 not WR ?) => don't look like a first lens but sure I'd love those...

That's why I'm still thinking, but I resumed my problem to :
- go for the 18-55 WR (kit) => very cheap in kit, a not so expensive "waiting lens"
- directly go for the 16-85 or the 17-70, in this case probably the 16-85 because it covers the focales I use now and weather resistant (coherent with K3).
Perhaps the decision will rely on bargain power, if I have a good deal in my shop I'll go for the 16-85, if they stick to their prices I'll start with the kit...

Thanks al for your helps I'll keep looking for updates for a few hours before deciding tomorrow max...

[IchabodCrane]

I have the DA 18-135 and, more recently, the DA 17-70. I find the DA 17-70 is a little bit sharper and, more important, has better contrast and color in many side-by-side shots. I particularly see it with browns which are more vivid in the 17-70. Also keep in mind that the longer the focal length, the more important the speed of the lens becomes.

[krebsy75]

My copy of the 17-70 had wicked lens creep.

[bassek]

• 31mm - 67mm = f/4.5

So the DA16-85 is slower than the F35-70/3.5-4.5 in that range. I wonder what the point is for this lens. IQ?

Seb

[paulnelson]

I have the DA 18-135 and, more recently, the DA 17-70. I find the DA 17-70 is a little bit sharper and, more important, has better contrast and color in many side-by-side shots. I particularly see it with browns which are more vivid in the 17-70. Also keep in mind that the longer the focal length, the more important the speed of the lens becomes.

Thx for the tips, for what I read, the 16-80 compare to the 17-70 would be :
•16mm - 20mm = f/3.5 => faster
• 21mm - 30mm = f/4 => the same
• 31mm - 67mm = f/4.5 => slower
• 68mm - 85mm = f/5.6 => much slower (but that would be ok for me, 68mm (equiv 100mm) il already quite a long focal for me... I'm just interested with the 16-85 in the possibility to shot from 50 to 85 without changing the lens... I won't open the debate here on wich lens for 50-135 o 50-300...

[audiobomber]

I specifically asked the Ricoh Pentax Canadian Marketing Manager about the 16-85 vs. 17-70. He said the 16-85 is in a different league due to MTF scores, better AF, HD coatings and pro build quality (FWIW).

[JinDesu]

So the DA16-85 is slower than the F35-70/3.5-4.5 in that range. I wonder what the point is for this lens. IQ?

Seb

The 16-35 that the 35-70 doesn't do.

[paulnelson]

well well well... and the winner is...

I'll try the 16-85...
cons (for me) : doesn't have the ring with the distance (for MF at oo)
pros (for me) :
- the range 16-85 is just over what I use now,
- 16mm - 20mm = f/3.5
- 21mm - 30mm = f/4
- building : WR (and thanks audiobomber post)
- own taste : (wen't to a store do see IRL the products) the "touch" is more pleasant, the AF felt better (not scientific or rationnal)

It's new, havn't been tested yet and I think I won't read reviews untill I made my own opinion on strenght and weaknesses. At the end of the day is there un more important fact that : "makes goods pic for me or doesn't" ?

almost on my way... thanks to all for the help !

[Driline]

pros (for me) :
- the range 16-85 is just over what I use now,
- 16mm - 20mm = f/3.5
- 21mm - 30mm = f/4
- building : WR (and thanks audiobomber post)
- own taste : (wen't to a store do see IRL the products) the "touch" is more pleasant, the AF felt better (not scientific or rationnal)

You forgot that it has a cool looking red ring. That reason alone is enough to buy it.

[DSims]

Let us know how you like it!

The most important thing is that you chose and are getting started! You can make adjustments later.


FWIW, I would expect the F35-70/3.5-4.5, F24-50/4, and maybe DA16-45/4 to take slightly better photos. We shall see. Eventually you may value faster apertures and/or constant apertures more. But the 16-85 will probably/hopefully be a good lens for you for the next year or two (and it'd better be for the price they're launching it at).

[paulnelson]

Just begining to play with the 16-85, looks ok for me just as versatile as I need ! (just opened a flick to share https://www.flickr.com/photos/pguayacan/ )