Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-20-2015, 04:00 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 55
16-45 vs 16-85

Does anyone have both? What are your opinions?

07-20-2015, 04:11 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Paul the Sunman's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,805
I have neither, but would be shocked if they are at all comparable. The 16-85 seems in a different league to me. Let's see what people say ...
07-20-2015, 05:02 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,682
Another sideline reporter here though I've owned the 16-45.
I cannot speak optically but mechanically they are very different - and that alone is important. The 16-45's most bizarre feature (full length at 16mm, blocking flash output) is removed, WR is in place, and quiet DC motor too. From 16-45mm the new lens is f/3.5-4.5 (per Heie's review) so speed-wise it's nearly a draw. Whether these are worth 3x the price, that's each person's call. I loved the 16-45 except for its ending at 45, so that's definitely "fixed"

Last edited by jimr-pdx; 07-20-2015 at 05:08 PM. Reason: better data
07-20-2015, 05:08 PM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 764
16-85 is pretty awesome


Last edited by GaryH; 07-20-2015 at 06:13 PM.
07-20-2015, 05:23 PM   #5
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,520
All the shots I've seen from the DA16-85 seem to lack something, be it micro-contrast, pixie dust or whatever. I'm not at all tempted to change

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal
07-20-2015, 06:34 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
longbow's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 679
Don't know anything about the 16-45, but the 16-85 has become my most used lens. Though at times I wish it was faster, but it has a lot going for it - WR, quite focus, good IQ, reasonable size & weight and a wide to telephoto range.


From a recent salmon fishing trip in the ocean (out the mouth of the Columbia River) where I didn't want to change lens. It worked great through out it's range from 16mm to 85mm:
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
07-20-2015, 11:06 PM   #7
Senior Member
geedee's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: La Paz, Bolivia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 107
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
All the shots I've seen from the DA16-85 seem to lack something, be it micro-contrast, pixie dust or whatever. I'm not at all tempted to change

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

Great photos, Karel. They show exactly why I like the DA 16-45. Keep up the good work!
07-21-2015, 04:43 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
EricBrown's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Arlington, VA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 840
I can't speak to the 16-45, but I have been very happy with the 16-85. So much so I sold my 18-135 and may sell my 16-50 as the 16-85 is now my all purpose lens. I've added some photos from a recent trip to NYC.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
07-21-2015, 05:29 AM   #9
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,404
They are both lenses well-regarded by their users.

I haven't owned, but have played with, the 16-45. I'd say it's more cheaply made (not much so), probably because WR calls for tight tolerances. The extra zoom range of the 16-85 is very useful, as are the WR, DC motor (much faster, and silent). I'm not a big fan of the focus ring of the 16-85, there are no markings so in pitch black night you can't easily set it. That's about my only gripe with it. I think in all other regards it's a superior lens.
07-21-2015, 06:42 AM   #10
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,843
I've owned the DA 16-45, and currently own the DA 16-85. The DA 16-45 is a nice lens. But the DA 16-85 is better. It's a bit sharper, contrastier, brighter, richer color rendition, better build quality, and WR.
07-21-2015, 10:16 AM   #11
Pentaxian
seventysixersfan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,779
But you can often get a used copy of the 16-45 for $200 or less, whereas the new 16-85 is around $600 on average. So the cost of acquiring the lens could be a factor. The 16-45 is an unbeatable value for the image quality, even if it stops at 45mm and lacks weather seals and a silent motor.

That said, I may well get a 16-85 someday when the prices come down a bit, even though I have 16-45 and 18-135 already in my camera bag.
07-21-2015, 07:09 PM - 1 Like   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 382
My two cents, I wish I hadn't sold my 16-45, it's a really good lens, almost untouchable for the money. It's images had a quality about them. I sold it to get the 18-135, which I'm glad I have, but the 16-45 has it's place in the kit as well.
07-21-2015, 07:59 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 824
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

Nice! Thanks for sharing. I have enjoyed viewing many of the 16-45 photos on flickr.
07-22-2015, 01:03 AM   #14
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 68
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I've owned the DA 16-45, and currently own the DA 16-85. The DA 16-45 is a nice lens. But the DA 16-85 is better. It's a bit sharper, contrastier, brighter, richer color rendition, better build quality, and WR.
Have owned 16-45 too and share this oppinion. Provided you'll get a good copy of 16-85. Mine is decentered in the range of 35-85 mm And it looks like percentage of decentered 16-85s is quite high
07-22-2015, 05:24 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,376
16-85 ? why buy it ? It is jus encouraging Pentax/Richo to go the Canikon route with easy to make huge lenses.
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AF performance 16-85 vs 18-135 vs screw drive on K3? Tommy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 06-05-2015 02:27 PM
15ltd vs 16-85? alexeyga Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 02-21-2015 11:14 AM
pentax da 16-45 vs 16-50 da* for K5? gf1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 11-16-2013 10:14 AM
16-45 Lens vs 18-250 Lens. 16-45 Better? Petermgr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 08-23-2008 09:40 PM
Pentax 16-45 vs 16-50 test benjikan Post Your Photos! 2 03-13-2008 11:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 AM. | 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