[jake14mw]

Hi all,

I’m hoping I can get some input into solving my wide angle lens need. I’m a dad of teenage kids, and most of my shooting is either events, or their sports. I do some portraiture too. My main lens that I leave on my camera most of the time is a Tamron 28-75 2.8. I like the flexibility of zooms over primes, and this lens covers a nice range, and sharpness is good (sharpness is big for me). I do find times mostly at events where 28mm is not wide enough though. I have the 18-55 kit lens, which I do use if I need wider than 28, and that lens is OK, but I would like something with higher IQ at the wide end. Also, something that goes wider than 18mm would be nice to have. I’m trying to decide how to fill my wide angle gap. My budget is limited, so it would most likely be a used lens that I would purchase. After researching a bit, here’s my thought process, briefly:

Pentax DA 15mm f4 – Seems like people rave about it. If I had to have a wide prime, seems like 15mm would be the ideal focal length for me. Problem is, I don’t like changing lenses, and with it not being a zoom, I don’t feel like I would use it as much. Also, a little on the expensive side for me right now. Might be great on the K-01 as well though.

Sigma 10-20mm – handles very wide angle, which I don’t think I’m that interested in, but you never know. I was able to borrow one for a wedding once, and it was very interesting, but I found that my keeper rate was low, sharpness didn’t seem great. Does it take getting used to?

Pentax 16-50 – Seems like the perfect combination of good IQ and focal range length range for me. I could see it staying on a camera a lot. I don’t think I can justify the $ I would need to spend for it right now though.

Any of the ~ 17-50 2.8 zooms – seems like a good compromise choice. Useful range for me, reasonably priced, I appreciate fast lenses. Definitely a possibility.

Pentax 16-45 f4 – Probably the front runner right now? Good range for me, inexpensive. My main question is, how is the IQ at the wide end?

Any thoughts that anyone has that they think I should consider would be appreciated. Thanks.

[TER-OR]

IQ on the 16-45 is pretty good, I've got some great action shots with the dogs in bright winter weather. Definitely punches above its price class. I don't use it much since getting the 18-135, since it's weather sealed and easier to take care of.

You have lots of choices if you're looking at a price range including the 16-50 and 15mm. The 17-50s are good choices, too, some have good motorized focus. The 16-50 is not rated as a really quick focuser, from what I've read.

[BigMackCam]

I have the DA15 and it really is a fantastic lens - possibly my favourite DA. However, I think you might be better off with something faster, and the flexibility of some zoom range. As you say, you'd prefer not to be changing lenses. I can't recommend a lens as I don't have anything suitable, but something like the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 sounds about right to me...

[enoeske]

Is the new 16-85 out of the running? That seems like a nice fit. Just short of the 15mm you mentioned but 16 is a lot wider than 28mm of the Tamron.

[sterretje]

My choice would be a Sigma 17-50/2.8 if those events are in low light or the 10-20 if not.

Is the new 16-85 out of the running? That seems like a nice fit. Just short of the 15mm you mentioned but 16 is a lot wider than 28mm of the Tamron.

I think it's not that budget friendly for OP as it's too new to be available 2nd hand.

[enoeske]

My choice would be a Sigma 17-50/2.8 if those events are in low light or the 10-20 if not.

I think it's not that budget friendly for OP as it's too new to be available 2nd hand.

I don't think its any more than a used 16-50, that's on the list.

[jake14mw]

Sterretje had it exactly right, the 16-50 old enough to be available used for less $, but it is still out of my range, plus for me the 2.8 of the 16-50 trumps the extra range of the 16-85 for me.

[kh1234567890]

Pentax 16-45 f4 – Probably the front runner right now? Good range for me, inexpensive. My main question is, how is the IQ at the wide end?

Better than the DA15 unless that lens is stopped right down - Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

With people in the shot you don't want to be too wide. If you really want a prime then you might find the DA21 more versatile than the DA15.

[jake14mw]

Better than the DA15 unless that lens is stopped right down - Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

With people in the shot you don't want to be too wide. If you really want a prime then you might find the DA21 more versatile than the DA15.

Thanks for the link, nice photos! Any other feedback for me on the 16-45? The good thing is, used the lens is under $200, so if it turns out that it does not work for me, I can always resell and pursue another lens.

And your point on the 15 vs. the 21 is well taken. Quite a difference between them, and another reason why I lean towards zooms.

[TER-OR]

I have both the 16-45 and a DA21. The 21 is really nice. The 16-45 never let me down. I just wanted a WR lens in that range, so mostly use the 18-135 these days.
IIRC in the 24mm-ish range it was very nice. As you say, buying used you can sell again for the same price, the used price has stabilized.

A 17-50 of some sort would still be tempting for your use, though.

[kh1234567890]

If you buy the DA16-45 used, make sure to check for decentering and barrel wobble. The lens is not of the sturdiest of builds and extends quite a bit at the 16mm end. With the hood mounted even just resting the camera on a flat surface puts a lot of lateral strain on the lens barrel. Buy from somewhere or someone that will accept a return.

[northcoastgreg]

Pentax 16-45 f4 – Probably the front runner right now? Good range for me, inexpensive. My main question is, how is the IQ at the wide end?

If by IQ you mean lens sharpness, the 16-45 is plenty sharp across the frame at 16mm --- indeed, surprisingly good for a zoom lens at its price point (assuming you don't have a decentered copy -- always an issue because of the barrel wobble). I became a bit dissatisfied with my DA 16-45 as it was struggling to keep up with most of my other glass. While it's a nice lens and definitely superior to the DA 18-55, I would rank nearly all the other DA standard zooms above it. Even the DA 18-135, despite the weaker edges at the wide end, produce images that look better thanks to superior lens contrast.

If you really like what you're getting the Tamron 28-75 you may be best off getting the Tamron 17-50, as there should not be much difference between how each of those lenses performs.

[mattb123]

I have both the 15 and 16-50 and they are both very nice lenses. If you don't want a prime then the 16-50 is a good choice. I see them used for reasonable prices from time to time. The weather sealing and speed set the lens apart from the others and makes it versatile. IQ is very good but there are some well known flaws like CA but fortunately that is easy to fix in Lightroom.

[formercanuck]

If you really like what you're getting the Tamron 28-75 you may be best off getting the Tamron 17-50, as there should not be much difference between how each of those lenses performs.

+1 - The Tamron's have in general had a good review - as long as the focusing is good. They typically have a 6 year warranty on US versions.

[tibbitts]

If you buy the DA16-45 used, make sure to check for decentering and barrel wobble. The lens is not of the sturdiest of builds and extends quite a bit at the 16mm end. With the hood mounted even just resting the camera on a flat surface puts a lot of lateral strain on the lens barrel. Buy from somewhere or someone that will accept a return.

This is very true. A seller's idea of the condition of these lenses might not be accurate. I'd probably rate mine as being in very good or excellent condition, because I honestly can't remember if my 16-45 was as wobbly new as it is now. I can detect edge issues now (at 16mp) that I couldn't detect when the lens was new (at 6mp.) But how much of that is just the wobbly design and 16 vs. 6mp, vs. any deterioration that might have occurred, I can't say. As far as I know there is no practical way to repair the wobble issues with these lenses.