[Just1MoreDave]

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.

[art_oliver]

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!

[TER-OR]

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.

[mekiAus]

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

[yellowbrick]

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?

[northcoastgreg]

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).

[yellowbrick]

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.

[John Hales]

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?

[mattb123]

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.

[UncleVanya]

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.

'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.

[GlennG]

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.