[Dewman]

What's the general consensus of the SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm F4 lens?

Again, I know I can read the reviews..... and again, I'll give you the same reply as always. I'd rather hear some input from current members.... some of whom I recognize and have more than one or two posts in total on the PF.

I like hearing from members who have personal experience with the lens in question. That way, I feel like I can better judge the worthiness of the lens and learn, first hand, the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of it.

Thanks for any opinions, comments or replies.

[Billk]

It isn't brilliant but it isn't bad either.

I had one a few years back but it got traded in to make the payments for another lens.

It isn't wonderful at 16mm but you can clean up the images in Lightroom.

It is pretty good at 45mm.

Before I got a macro lens I used it for close ups of flowers quite often and I was pretty satisfied with the results.

[kh1234567890]

I find mine optically very good, useable right down to f4 with only a touch of softness in the corners. Mine is very sharp at all focal lengths. What lets it down is the mechanical design - if you are not careful you'll end up with wobbly lens barrel.

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

[pathdoc]

Send a PM to Tsuken, he's been using the 16-45 for Single in January and again this month.

[TaoMaas]

I've been very happy with my copy of the 16-45mm. For the price they're going for these days, it's a pretty good value, I think.

[Dewman]

I've been very happy with my copy of the 16-45mm. For the price they're going for these days, it's a pretty good value, I think.

Well then, I guess my copy, basically NIB for $100 was a good deal, huh?

[ChristianRock]

How did you find one for 100? I got mine recently for 120 dollars in bargain condition and thought it was a great deal. It is a bit weak at the edges at 16mm f4 but otherwise I am pretty impressed. Mine has just a little wobble.

Get that lens and don't think twice And if you have any questions just see kh1234577890's flickr link. I was convinced to get one from his results and from Swift1's comments on an earlier thread.

[les3547]

Overall IQ was impressive for the price. A term I like is "full-bodied" . . . it has depth.

[Imp]

I'd say... Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? Same range, a stop faster, build quality maybe isn't QUITE as good... but you can get it used fairly cheap. Also AF is not the greatest, but it is very sharp. and colors won't be the pentax colors, but it'll be a better lens than the 16-45 f/4

Normhead's recent poll of a bunch of lenses at 35mm had the Super Tak 35 in first place, followed by the Tamron 17-50, and then DA35 f/2.4 - So its a good lens.

[MJSfoto1956]

For travel, I generally pair my DA 16-45mm with my DA* 60-250mm. The 60-250mm is the better of the two but the 16-45 can definitely "keep up" -- especially if you stop it down a bit. The other benefit is that both use 67mm filters so my kit can be as efficiently small and lightweight as possible. My only wish would be if it could be WR -- I'd be a happy camper.

Michael

[esrandall]

I really enjoyed mine, and was especially happy with the results it gave at close focus. I owned two copies of the Tamron 17-50, and a Sigma 17-50, with the Sigma 17-50 being the best (and considerably more expensive). The 16-45 was every bit as good as the pair of Tamrons. Probably the best $125 I ever spent on a lens (bought it from a forum member, and it was in excellent condition).

Definitely worth taking for a spin.

[Sudhakar]

I have been using that beauty since October, 2009. It was alternative to kit lens (which I did not purchase). Had to contemplate a lot before buying it and I created my own matrix based on my needs before coming to conclusion. There might be new lenses and improvements since then. It is a fine piece of glass for walk around and landscapes. Minimum focus distance helped me in couple of situations. Sometimes felt missing faster aperture (2.8 or less) and some times reach (beyond 45mm). As a photographer, we need always some thing extra than what we have (LBA :-))

No regrets and I will use this till I find some good gift package in front of my door by Santa. If you get a good deal, go for it. Also if you get an opportunity to try different lenses, try before coming to conclusion. I did not had that "trying" opportunity.

I am an amateur photographer and you can have peek at some of the shots taken with that lens.

Good luck

[Hattifnatt]

I have used mine only for a very short time. I found myself using it mostly at 16mm, so in the end the DA 15mm Limited proved to be too much competition. But I was very happy with this lens at times where I could not afford the DA15. Also, at that time I was shooting a bit in pubs with low light and f4 was not so helpful.

Few shots with the DA 16-45:











I would say it's good value for the price. Overall I feel a little bit sorry because I went for more expansive lenses without exploring the full potential of lenses such as this one. When I sold it I made an album with almost all the pics, you can find it here.

[Dewman]

How did you find one for 100? I got mine recently for 120 dollars in bargain condition and thought it was a great deal. It is a bit weak at the edges at 16mm f4 but otherwise I am pretty impressed. Mine has just a little wobble.

Get that lens and don't think twice And if you have any questions just see kh1234577890's flickr link. I was convinced to get one from his results and from Swift1's comments on an earlier thread.

I found it, along with a Tamron 18-200mm AF(IF) Macro, both in original boxes and in pristine condition for $200.00 on a CL ad. As one who's almost obsessed with sharpness, if kh1234567890's images are any indication of the 16-45mm's capabilities, I'm quite sure I'll be happy with it. It should be here early next week. I was surprised and delighted at the find.

---------- Post added 02-05-16 at 06:14 AM ----------

I have used mine only for a very short time. I found myself using it mostly at 16mm, so in the end the DA 15mm Limited proved to be too much competition. But I was very happy with this lens at times where I could not afford the DA15. Also, at that time I was shooting a bit in pubs with low light and f4 was not so helpful.

Few shots with the DA 16-45:











I would say it's good value for the price. Overall I feel a little bit sorry because I went for more expansive lenses without exploring the full potential of lenses such as this one. When I sold it I made an album with almost all the pics, you can find it here.

Very impressive.... and so sharp! Sharpness is what I use as the benchmark for just about every lens I'm thinking about buying. Maybe to some, not the best of approaches, but I LOVE a good, sharp lens.... and regardless of it's other attributes, it is doesn't or can't produce a good, sharp image, I'm not interested in it. Thanks for the post. It is reassuring that I made the right decision. At the price, how could I not?

[TaoMaas]

Well then, I guess my copy, basically NIB for $100 was a good deal, huh?

No...that was an excellent deal! lol