[jrpower10]

The 16-85 is very good wide open.

I'm curious about this lens. Is it sharp wide open through the full zoom range? I have a 16-50 which I like, but needs stopping down at the wide end. I would consider the 16-85 as a possible replacement but haven't seen any direct comparisons.

[Squawk]

You should get a fast 50 no matter which direction you go for the zoom. If pure IQ is the determining factor over reach, I'm sure the 20-40 wins.

Good point! Well with the extra money saved I could get a AF201FG flash or battery grip.

---------- Post added 08-18-15 at 04:50 PM ----------

I've had both since March. They're good WR DC lenses, with similar IQ, one is smaller & lighter the other more range. Though the 20-40 is a "faster" lens, in reality I've had to usually stop mine down further than the 16-85 to get the same sharpness. The 16-85 is very good wide open.

That said, if I had to choose only one, it would be the 16-85. Most of my use is outdoors in the woods, with the 20-40 I struggle with it being either too short or not wide enough, the 16-85 being more useful for my needs. There are times though the 20-40 is nice to have because of it's weight & size.

Again, both are good, just come down to your needs.

I am looking at it mainly for general use, street photography, portraits, lanscapes and architecture. I'll be getting the 55-300 for wildlife nature shots and the 50 for indoor low light family candids.

[longbow]

Is it sharp wide open through the full zoom range?

In my opinion, it's very good wide open......sharp ? I don't have a DA*16-50, so I can't compare, but even the 16-85, as with most lenses is sharper stopped down. I do think it's a well designed lens with a good useful range, reasonable size/weight and produces good images. I use my DA* 50-135 more than the 16-85 because of it's IQ and a little better in low light, usually carry both for range coverage. So I can't say a 16-85 would be better than your 16-50.

[Squawk]

Wow...after viewing the images on the da limited zoom club thread I don't think there's a question as to which lens suits my needs best...;-) I can't wait!

---------- Post added 08-18-15 at 06:57 PM ----------

Now I just need to decide on the battery grip or flash cuz I won't be able to afford both.

[VisualDarkness]

I would get a flash over a battery grip for sure!

[JameyMC]

I like my Sigma 17-50 for that range (though I only seem to use it at 17 or 50). The f/2.8 is there for low light, and the IQ is definitely there, as well. The 20-40 has always intrigued me, but like you, I see enough mixed reviews to make me hesitate. I've actually set my 17-50 aside, and have made myself go with the combo of my HD 21 Limited, and a DA50. Nice to have it all in one lens, but I like the extra speed with the DA 50, and I'm really liking the 21 for mountainscapes, and stuff like that. Has really good colors. If you aren't in need of WR, I would take a strong look at the Tamron/Sigma 17-50's. I've had them both, and while I prefer the Sigma, the Tamron definitely gets the job done -- and they both have the lowlight advantage.

I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8. Wonderfully sharp.

[SGOMMO7]

Hi, the 20-40 is my most used and currently my favorite lens.I passed on getting this lens from the used market because of all the bad copies floating around; I figured if someone was getting rid of the lens it had a higher chance of being a bad copy. When I got my copy the felt on the lens cap was improperly installed and I had to get a replacement cap. But I did get a good copy of the lens! It is fair to say my copy is sharp wide open throughout the whole range.

This lens was designed to try to capture spatial presence, (I'm assuming nothing was lost in translation here) I find that very intriguing. My photographic style is abstract oriented meaning I emphasize space and motion over mass and volume. So learning what this lens was designed for I thought it would make a good companion for me.

To make sure you got a good copy just check for decentering as I believe that is the main reason for the poor performance of the bad copies.

Haven't tried the 16-80, guess it's weak point is on the telephoto end. Seems like a great range.

I'm including a tutorial I made though you probably don't need it.

Attached Images

 

[Davidparis]

When based on the type of photography we want to do , the decision between a 20-40, 16-85 or prime is easy. For landscape and archi, 16-85 preferred. 20-40 is not worth because if we use a 30mm or 35mm prime, moving back or forth a few steps we can frame the same as with a 20-40, with the advantage that a 35mm prime can be faster and sharper. So, I'd suggest to select either a 16-85 or a 35mm prime or both, depending if the purpose of the lens. The 20-40 ltd appeal is more about lust than anything else: the pleasure of having an limited style lens, built with aluminum and nice finish. Always remember than a good image is more about framing, composition, colors and light, independent from the lens, but very much related to focal length, point of view, and seeing of the photographer.

Perfectly stated!

[Squawk]

I would get a flash over a battery grip for sure!

Thanks....I was actually thinking the same thing...was curious if anyone would say the grip though.

Now for a serious question. My expected budget took a hit, so what about between the 50 1.8 or the flash?

[Kath]

Thanks....I was actually thinking the same thing...was curious if anyone would say the grip though.

Now for a serious question. My expected budget took a hit, so what about between the 50 1.8 or the flash?

I have both, but rarely use the flash. I'm sure most would say it depends (again) on what and how you're planning to shoot. I much prefer natural light and the low-light lenses let me work in that realm with only the occasional need for supplemental light. My flash use is more specialized and, therefore, for me, a rarity.

[starbase218]

You should get a fast 50 no matter which direction you go for the zoom. If pure IQ is the determining factor over reach, I'm sure the 20-40 wins.

s/50/35/

In other words, substitute 50 for 35 in your post and I agree.

I think the primary advantage of the 20-40 is that it has far less flare. It's also a bit faster. I assume it will be better in terms of IQ, but the 16-85 is also very good there!

Both DC, both WR...

If it were me, I'd be asking, what do I expect of this lens? 20-40 is a lot smaller than 16-85. That is what you have to think about. I don't know why you want the lens, e.g. how will you use it, what kind of photos do you want to shoot with it? Don't get the 20-40 just because it's good, or even because others say it will make you drool in front of your computer screen. Get it because you want it, because it fits in your existing lens line-up, because it is what you are personally looking for. For example, I could see it fit very well in a 15/70 Ltd set. But if all I got was a 70-200, or even the 55-300, and I'd want a lens to match that, I'd get the 16-85.

Think about what you want, instead of what others say about the lens.

edit: I see you want it for portraits too. If it were me, that would immediately disqualify the 20-40.

[Squawk]

s/50/35/

In other words, substitute 50 for 35 in your post and I agree.

I think the primary advantage of the 20-40 is that it has far less flare. It's also a bit faster. I assume it will be better in terms of IQ, but the 16-85 is also very good there!

Both DC, both WR...

If it were me, I'd be asking, what do I expect of this lens? 20-40 is a lot smaller than 16-85. That is what you have to think about. I don't know why you want the lens, e.g. how will you use it, what kind of photos do you want to shoot with it? Don't get the 20-40 just because it's good, or even because others say it will make you drool in front of your computer screen. Get it because you want it, because it fits in your existing lens line-up, because it is what you are personally looking for. For example, I could see it fit very well in a 15/70 Ltd set. But if all I got was a 70-200, or even the 55-300, and I'd want a lens to match that, I'd get the 16-85.

Think about what you want, instead of what others say about the lens.

edit: I see you want it for portraits too. If it were me, that would immediately disqualify the 20-40.

Thank you! I agree and I really do feel like it will serve me well for how abs what I want to shoot. Oh and sorry I didn't mean bust portraits, full body and candid shots. Which I will have the 50 1.8 for as well.

[JinDesu]

I don't want to post the photos as they are of my significant other, but I disagree that the 20-40 cannot do portraits.

[Bunch]

edit: I see you want it for portraits too. If it were me, that would immediately disqualify the 20-40.

60mm full frame equivalent can't be used for portraits?

[starbase218]

60mm full frame equivalent can't be used for portraits?

I never had a fullframe camera.

I prefer 70mm for portraits. 100mm is too long, 50mm is a bit on the short side. Depending on the circumstances of course. But this is the range I think is most suitable for portraits.

If you like shooting portraits with a 40mm on APS-C, that's great too. I'm not saying it can't be used for that. I said, "if it were me".