[aslyfox]

The adult male Sumatran tiger at the Topeka Zoological Park (father of the triple female cubs which are there)

Photographed through the enclosure's glass window

Pentax K 5 II + HD PENTAX-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[markom]

An autumn afternoon in Basel, Switzerland

[timb64]

I am close to buying this lens as "one lens" solution and as a replacement for my 18-55WR. But I hate bulk and the price for me is quite high (Makes me consider a small compact camera i.e. Panasonic LX 100, RX100iv etc.) But the results from the 16-85 is compelling.

Keep'em coming!

I have a Sony RX100i as a backup/lightweight carry around.Whilst the results are not bad and the size is convenient,there is no way I would forego the extra IQ and flexibility/control of a DSLR,even if the extra weight/bulk are occasionally a pain in the back.Sometimes you have to suffer for your art

[C_Jones]

I am close to buying this lens as "one lens" solution and as a replacement for my 18-55WR. But I hate bulk and the price for me is quite high (Makes me consider a small compact camera i.e. Panasonic LX 100, RX100iv etc.) But the results from the 16-85 is compelling.

Keep'em coming!

I upgraded from the Pentax 18-55 AL II to the Pentax 16-85 for the range at both ends. The difference in wideness from the 16 as opposed to the 18 is quite a gain and the 85 is very advantageous in some situations where you need to get closer. The 18-55 was a stellar lens, and the 16-85 gives even more versatility of range along with excellent images. If you get the 16-85 you will not be disappointed.

[timb64]

[northcoastgreg]

From Zion National Park:

[aslyfox]

one of the Sumatran Tiger Cubs at the Topeka Zoological Park using the Pentax K 3 + Pentax DA 16-85 WR shot through the glass window of the enclosure, limited crop no other pp


look at the size of the fang next to the tongue

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[northcoastgreg]

Reflections on the Salt River:

[WPRESTO]

Reflections on the Salt River:

Wonderful "sweet light" colors. Lucky the water was to glass-like smooth.

[northcoastgreg]

Wonderful "sweet light" colors. Lucky the water was to glass-like smooth.

Yes, it was lucky to have the smooth water, as it's been windy in these parts since I took that shot.

Here's another shot of the nearby Superstition Mountains:

[weaponx525]

I am torn between this lens and the 28-105 D FA. The 28-105 is nice for the possibility of going full frame in the future without worrying about vignetting because of a Da lens on full frame body. When I use the 55-200 I don't normally go beyond 105 mm anyway. Im also currently using the original kit lens and want an improvement. What are the opinions: the 16-85 or 28-105mm. Feedback is much appreciated!

[WPRESTO]

I am torn between this lens and the 28-105 D FA. The 28-105 is nice for the possibility of going full frame in the future without worrying about vignetting because of a Da lens on full frame body. When I use the 55-200 I don't normally go beyond 105 mm anyway. Im also currently using the original kit lens and want an improvement. What are the opinions: the 16-85 or 28-105mm. Feedback is much appreciated!

The 16~85 is a wonderful lens on my K3 - by far my favorite of several wide-to-normal lenses I've had over the years (18-55, 18-135, Sigma 17-70 - - but I still have a Sigma 18-250 for some traveling). However, it is only usable on a K1 in crop mode. If you are quite certain you'll be going to a K1, I would recommend the 28-105. I find the IQ 100% satisfactory, but it's coverage is neither as wide or long on FF as the 16-85 is on APS-C.

[weaponx525]

Would the equivalent field of view be 32-160 if I use the 28-105 on my K5 I and the 16-85 would "become" 24-127?

[WPRESTO]

Would the equivalent field of view be 32-160 if I use the 28-105 on my K5 I and the 16-85 would "become" 24-127?

Essentially yes. Used on APS-C, a 28~105mm zoom would give the equivalent of about 32~160mm on a FF. The 16~85mm mounted on FF used in crop mode would provide the equivalent of 24~127mm on FF used in FF mode. PLEASE NOTE THAT, when the 16~85mm is mounted on an APS-C camera, the coverage is the same as a 24~127mm mounted on a FF camera in FF mode. AT THE PRESENT TIME there is no K-mount lens capable of covering a FF sensor that will give the same zoom range that the 16~85mm provides on APS-C. But in fairness, that applies to many APS-C zoom lenses, almost too many to list (10-17 fish-eye; 20~40; 17~70; 18~135/250/270/300; 50~135; 55~300 - - and there are more). It is easier to make a satisfactory long-range zoom for a smaller sensor than for a FF sensor. Part of the problem can be seen by comparing the APS-C 16~50 to the FF 24~75. These lenses have the same angular coverage on their respective sensor size, but the 24~70 is much bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

[timb64]