Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2015, 10:53 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,742
The 16-45 is not as good for closeups as the 18-55 lenses are. (Magnification ratio 1:4 vs. 1:3.) That probably means you'll need a dedicated macro later. Make sure you get the dedicated hood - it's useful and expensive to get separately. Make sure you can return a purchase if the lens is in bad shape. The 16-45 has unimpressive build quality and some lenses have excessive barrel wobble. I would test it against an 18-55 to see if it's sharper.

That sounds a little negative but all the other lenses you've mentioned have occasional problems too. I think my 16-45 is excellent. I've had it for six or seven years now (bought used) and 4000+ shots. Mine is sharper than my 18-55, with more contrast and better colors. I like to use it with an external flash, stitched panoramas, and wide angle landscapes. It keeps me from buying a DA 15/4. It was cheap. It has been on every trip I've taken. I would buy a replacement for it if it broke.

02-18-2015, 03:44 AM   #17
New Member
art_oliver's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lisboa - Portugal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20
Original Poster
Hello Everybody,

I have a decision I order the DA 16-45 mm ... all the other Pentax alternatives are all over the double of the price of it.

As we say here "Who don't have a dog hunt with a cat" !

Thanks a lot to all for you support.

Happy Shooting!
02-18-2015, 07:34 AM - 1 Like   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,533
I have a 16-45 but don't use it as frequently as the 18-135 these days.
The 16-45 is very good indoors at events, the zoom range is useful as is the wide end. I was never dissatisfied with the image quality.
02-24-2015, 05:26 PM   #19
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Narellan Vale
Posts: 14
Three Lenses

I use three of the zoom lenses mentioned in this thread.

The best bang for your buck (in terms of price, zoom range, aperture, close-up photos and picture quality) would be the Sigma 17-70 in its latest version as a walk-around lens.
It lived on my K10D and lives on my K3 in fine weather when I bring my backpack with a few extra lenses. Many of my favourite pictures were taken with this lens.

I got the 16-45mm lens when I purchased my K10D. The 16-45 is a keeper. It even rates better than the starred 16-50, but I do not use it much now - I found the range too restricting. It was extra weight and space to carry with my 17-70. And, if I need a really sharp wider angle landscape lens I use my SMC DA 15mm Prime. The fact that it is f/4 is not important for most landscapes.

Recently I took the 18-135 WR kit lens on my K-3 with me to Lady Elliott Island - I needed an all-conditions general-purpose lens and had a severe baggage weight restriction. I took a variety of shots with it and was not disappointed. It was a little short for bird shots, and not the fastest or sharpest until stopped down a bit. However, the extra focal length and WR made it preferable over my Sigma 17-70. I took a couple of Primes along, just in case. (DA SMC Limited 15mm f/4, FA 50mm f/1.7, DA SMC Limited 70mm f/2.4).

So - consider the purpose of your lens choice and your budget and go for it.

Michael

03-30-2015, 11:16 AM   #20
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 99
I'm a big fan of my DA 16-45 and have no barrel wobble. I am interested in the new 16-85 because of the extra reach and silent focusing would be nice to have. Does anyone know if the new 16-85 is sharper than (or as sharp as) the 16-45 across the shared range?
03-31-2015, 06:50 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,322
QuoteOriginally posted by yellowbrick Quote
Does anyone know if the new 16-85 is sharper than (or as sharp as) the 16-45 across the shared range?
Early indication from reviews and images posted online is that the 16-85 is fairly sharp. I haven't shot with that lens, but the high resolution images I've seen from it would seem to back this up. From online images I've seen I'm inclined to believe the 16-85 is a better lens than the 16-45. Better lens contrast, richer color, sharper in the center, as sharp or maybe sharper toward the edges (hard to ascertain this, however, without actually using the lens under many different circumstances).
04-01-2015, 11:16 AM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 99
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Early indication from reviews and images posted online is that the 16-85 is fairly sharp. I haven't shot with that lens, but the high resolution images I've seen from it would seem to back this up. From online images I've seen I'm inclined to believe the 16-85 is a better lens than the 16-45. Better lens contrast, richer color, sharper in the center, as sharp or maybe sharper toward the edges (hard to ascertain this, however, without actually using the lens under many different circumstances).
Thank you for your thoughts.
04-02-2015, 09:38 AM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 55
No one mentioned the DA16-50 and I was wondering why? I have read it is a good lens but have also read that it has had problems with the focusing motor, has that been resolved and if so how would you know if you got a 'fixed' one?

04-02-2015, 09:45 AM   #24
Pentaxian
mattb123's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Colorado High Country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,604
The 16-50 is flawed but also very nice. No other fast zoom options with WR in that range. CA is noticeable at times but usually not difficult to fix in LR. It's built like a tank.
I also have the DA 15 which is a favorite. I'll use that for wide shots if I'm going lighter and/or don't need the speed or WR.
04-02-2015, 04:10 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,987
QuoteOriginally posted by John Hales Quote
No one mentioned the DA16-50 and I was wondering why? I have read it is a good lens but have also read that it has had problems with the focusing motor, has that been resolved and if so how would you know if you got a 'fixed' one?
Actually the very first post of the thread by the OP mentioned it and indicated it was expensive. This seemed to put it out of contention.

QuoteOriginally posted by art_oliver Quote
'm on a budget but I would like to improve my gear beyond kit lens.
I already read a lot of posts and reviews and I'm considering a DA 16-45 to join to my actual DA 55-300. Later i can buy a DA 50mm f/1.8 and I'm done ...

Other options are:

- DA 17-70 is expensive and it seems to have HSM probs.
- DA 16-50 seems good by also expensive.
- DA 16-85 is out of budget.
- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 have very good reviews is fast but I like Pentax colors.
- Sigma 18-250 to stop this crazy indecision, sell kit lens and DA 55-300.
04-02-2015, 07:38 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 824
QuoteOriginally posted by art_oliver Quote
I already read a lot of posts and reviews and I'm considering a DA 16-45 to join to my actual DA 55-300. Later i can buy a DA 50mm f/1.8 and I'm done ... Other options are: - DA 17-70 is expensive and it seems to have HSM probs. - DA 16-50 seems good by also expensive. - DA 16-85 is out of budget. - Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 have very good reviews is fast but I like Pentax colors. - Sigma 18-250 to stop this crazy indecision, sell kit lens and DA 55-300.

For a great performing but well controlled budget your initial thoughts (16-45, 55-300, and 50/ 1.8) seem very good, IMHO. I keep thinking maybe I should have just chosen that combination and stopped there. I currently have 18-55II, upgraded that to DA 17-70, and just acquired the 16-50. The 17-70 - people say it performs similarly to the 16-45 in the common ranges. I like the 17-70 optically a lot, has some focus issues that are about in line with other reports. My SDM went out and was replaced. You can find some used ones that are priced well. The 16-50 is still too new to me, but so far has not overwhelmed me with the "wow" factor like I thought it might, but I may learn to use it better. Still, it is very good and has a spectacular build quality. Hope this helps a bit.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
budget, da, da 16-45 f/4, k-mount, kit, lens, pentax lens, reviews, shooting, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help me decide: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50 for my K-01 yellowbrick Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 04-30-2016 07:26 AM
*16-50 or 16-45/4 for studio shots Cyberex Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 02-27-2012 04:22 AM
16 - 45 or 16 -50 over kit lens??? qksilver Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 12-27-2007 12:01 AM
So, at this point: 16-50, or 16-45 Dr_Watso Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 10-13-2007 09:05 AM
Help! My 1st Lens... 18-55mm or 16-45? Cedar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-10-2007 06:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top