[candgpics]

Hi:

I know there are many looking at the new Pentax 16-85 lens. I took quite a circuitous route in getting one and I had a different experience than some. I thought I would post my impressions of the lens.

First, I purchased the lens to use for an upcoming trip this summer I am taking. I initially did not consider the lens, but changed my mind and really looked forward to its arrival. I thought I also would add it to my "bag" for general use when my family and I are outdoors or travelling and the light is good.

For background, I shoot with two K5ii and one K3 bodies. My lenses are the Sigma 10-20 (f4-5.6), 31 Limited, 43 Limited, DA* lenses (55, 60-250, and 300), Sigma 70-200 f2.8, Sigma 18-35 (which I am still fine tuning), and the Pentax 100 Macro WR.

When I received the Pentax 16-85 I played around with it, taking pictures of our children and in our backyard. I had read of some decentered samples and though I am no expert I saw edges of the lens, not necessarily uniform, that were softer than the center. Stopping down did not improve the sides/borders. Not horrible, but noticeable.

The lens also front focused on the wider end and back focused on the telephoto end. I typically shoot in low light venues taking martial arts and fitness related images, using primes, and at wide apertures. So, I am somewhat sensitive to these focus issues.

Of course, taking a picture in reasonably bright daylight of a tourist attraction or our children at the beach, likely will have me shooting at mid to narrow apertures and at some distance. FF/BB likely would go unnoticed other than in the probably much less frequent close up, lower light, wider aperture pictures I might take on occasion with the lens.

The third characteristic of the lens, though, which made an impression upon me was build quality. At $750 US the lens is not what I would consider inexpensive, though, I know it is meant to be an "upgraded kit" lens. At this price it is near or about the price of other far better built lenses. Of course, the optics and the range of the lens do affect price, but I must confess I felt the lens seemed a bit cheap in its overall build quality, given its price point. In particular, the zoom action was uneven, loose in some areas, stiffer in others. The lens also felt a little more "plasticky" than I think it should have at the price. Maybe I am being a bit too critical, but that was my impression.

I have played around with some of the available kit lenses (18-55, 55-300) and I think the 16-85 is more like the 55-300. At about $350-$400 the build quality of the 55-300 makes sense. At $750, about what new DA* 16-50 lenses are going for now (SDM issue aside), and actually more than the current pricing for the Limited 20-40, the 16-85 just seemed over priced. All different lenses to be sure, but I do not think the comparison is inappropriate.

I also have owned the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (and used to own the DA* 16-50, but after two SDM failures and two repairs--with the second repair seemingly sticking (no pun intended), I sold it) and used the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary. The Sigmas can be quirky in terms of focus, but their build quality was noticeably better than the Pentax 16-85, IMHO.

Anyway, each of these issues in isolation may not have been deal breakers. The possible decentering could have been fixed by getting a new copy, and perhaps I could have gotten used to being less worried about exact FF/BB given the likely use of the lens (general outdoor and travel pictures where the FF/BB would probably not be much of an issue). Add in the lower build quality, though, and I sent the lens back. At that price point, there were just too many issues.

I ended up ordering the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary given the excellent current price of $399. I was prepared to give it a try before it went on sale since I had used the lens before.

I lose the WR, but over the years, for my shooting, I think WR is less critical. I will buy a rain sleeve for my trip this summer. Kind of bulky to use on a trip, but unless it is raining the whole time, it should suffice.

I'll follow up after I get the Sigma 17-70 and have a chance to play around with the lens.

Oh, in terms of the 16-85's overall image sharpness, contrast, color, etc., in the center and generally around the lens center (putting aside the decentering issue) the lens was fine. More than sharp enough wide open and otherwise generally pleasing.

---

Last edited by candgpics; 05-04-2015 at 05:27 AM.

[Rimfiredude]

I have a 17-70 Sigma and have used it quite extensively over the years...really like it, but I find the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time is the Pentax A 35-105. I just love this lens, sharp as a tack at any f stop and focal length. Too bad it is not autofocus.

[mikeodial]

I have a 17-70 Sigma and have used it quite extensively over the years...really like it, but I find the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time is the Pentax A 35-105. I just love this lens, sharp as a tack at any f stop and focal length. Too bad it is not autofocus.

I had the 35-105, very nice lens, but not autofocus. The 16-50 is a very good lens, (I have one) but you might want to consider the FA 20-35mm as it would cover most the range, seems to have great rendering, and would work with a FF if you end up going that way in the future.

[rawr]

the Pentax A 35-105. I just love this lens, sharp as a tack at any f stop and focal length.

Agreed. It's a lovely lens. Pentax, pls make an updated one of these soon for the FF.

Otherwise, thank you candgpics for your real world experience with the 16-85. It's been a useful read for me, and others too no doubt.

[Imp]

Pentax, pls make an updated one of these soon for the FF.

For some reason, I really like using full-frame targeted lenses on APS-C. Like a 17-50 is a 24-70 on fullframe, but i'd really prefer having a 24-70 on a crop sensor... the fifty is always too short for me. I'd love it if Pentax released a new 35-105 zoom.

[jonby]

Candgpics, thanks for sharing your experiences with the 16-85. It's amazing how much people's views on particular lenses differ. It seems that your experiences are somewhat different to most that I have read so far on this lens. Most seem to have found the build quality and edge sharpness much better than yourself, and I haven't read any mention of front or back focusing. This just goes to show how subjective it all is, although some of the differences may be down to sample variation of course. I have found similar disparity between my own experiences and the prevailing opinion given online, with many lauding the virtues of lenses which I find to be quite poor. I suppose much depends on expectations, and I'm guessing you probably have higher expectations than many, given that most of the other lenses you mention are known to be excellent performers.

I haven't used the 16-85, but your assertions about it seem quite plausible to me based on examples I have seen and other lenses I have used. I also think we should expect a little more for the money in terms of build quality, optical quality and general quality control than what you describe here. I don't think it's fair to expect people to pay this amount of money and still have the chance of getting a lens which is decentered and not capable of rendering fairly sharp edges when stopped down. Pentax make amongst the best APS-C cameras available but I'm not sure I would say the same about their lens range, particularly the DA zooms and particularly regarding edge sharpness and decentering. I was beginning to think that the 16-85 was going to buck this trend but perhaps not. Samples I have seen so far have shown a pretty decent performance. Not amazing but pretty solid. So perhaps you just got a bad copy which is the exception rather than the norm. I guess the jury is still out.

[candgpics]

Hi. Thank you for the comments. I may have been a bit too critical, but at that price point I think the lens should be better built. I had thought about getting the Limited 20-40, but I really would like to have a bit more range on the longer end for a general walk about lens. I should have the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary today or tomorrow and look forward to playing around with it.

[bdery]

I also have owned the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (and used to own the DA* 16-50, but after two SDM failures and two repairs--with the second repair seemingly sticking (no pun intended), I sold it) and used the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary. The Sigmas can be quirky in terms of focus, but their build quality was noticeably better than the Pentax 16-85, IMHO.

I own the Sigma 17-70 v1, and have tested for Pentaxforums the v2 and Pentax 17-70. I have also played and owned a lot of lenses, many of them high IQ (and price .

I believe, but could be wrong, that one thing which put you off is the weight. The 16-85 is larger than, say, my Sigma v1, but it's the same weight. Maybe for some that cuold equate to a lower perceived build quality.

I find the 16-85 to be very tightly assembled, not prone to creeping (while the Sigma needs a lock), with a great finish matching my K-3. My own copy has a smooth zoom, with no loose parts of the range. So I'm guessing you got a subpar copy, sadly.

I ended up ordering the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary given the excellent current price of $399. I was prepared to give it a try before it went on sale since I had used the lens before.

That price, for that lens, is a fantastic deal. If it had WR I think its speed, range, close focus capabilities and IQ would make it the best choice overall for a normal zoom. I haven't tested the AF speed of that version, and I'd be curious to get feedback about that especially in live view. My v1 copy focuses fast enough in PDAF, but is very slow in CDAF. The 16-85 still trumps it in both modes, something which impressed me a lot (and still does).

[bassek]

Originally posted by Rimfiredude
the Pentax A 35-105. I just love this lens, sharp as a tack at any f stop and focal length.
Agreed. It's a lovely lens. Pentax, pls make an updated one of these soon for the FF.

They did. I already have it: the F35-105. Found a new copy three years ago.

Seb

[seventysixersfan]

Really helpful insights, @candgpics. I think I might stick with my three-headed monster zoom combination of DA 18-135, DA 16-45, and Tamron 28-75. Perhaps someday I could sell all these three and get the 16-85 but frankly I like what each of my current zooms gives me, individually:

DA 18-135 -- so compact and lightweight, WR, and extra zoom out to 135.
DA 16-45 -- wide angle, sharp, very lightweight
Tamron 28-75 - fast constant aperture zoom, lovely bokeh, excellent portrait zoom lens

[Spodeworld]

So, is there anyone here who has really tested the 16-85 against the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary? What are your thoughts on the image quality of one vs the other? Is there really a case to get one over the other on an IQ basis (already am aware of the WR advantage)?