[normhead]

Try setting the DA 16-85 or DA 18-135 to f/4 and then zooming. It won't be f/4 for long.

Exactly what I said. Set it for ƒ5.6 as if it were a fixed focal length lens, and you don't even have an ƒ4.

Then try setting the 16-45 at ƒ3.5 and 16mm.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-23-2016 at 04:56 PM.

[audiobomber]

The try setting the 16-45 at ƒ3.5 and 16mm.

That's not very realistic Norm. The 16-45mm is already sharp at f4 and 16mm. It reaches maximum sharpness by f5.6 at any focal length. The 18-135 is pretty terrible at f4 and 18mm.

You're just looking at the CA number. Most owners think very highly of the 16-45, and it is rated as a top zoom for K-mount by DXOMark. Best zoom lenses for the Pentax K-3 - DxOMark

It definitely belongs on the OP's list for consideration, IMO. The 16-45mm is head and shoulders better than the 18-55's I've owned. For my needs though, my 18-135 and Sigma 17-50 are a better fit.

[normhead]

That's not very realistic Norm. The 16-45mm is already sharp at f4 and 16mm. It reaches maximum sharpness by f5.6 at any focal length. The 18-135 is pretty terrible at f4 and 18mm.

You're just looking at the CA number. Most owners think very highly of the 16-45, and it is rated as a top zoom for K-mount by DXOMark. Best zoom lenses for the Pentax K-3 - DxOMark

It definitely belongs on the OP's list for consideration, IMO. The 16-45mm is head and shoulders better than the 18-55's I've owned. For my needs though, my 18-135 and Sigma 17-50 are a better fit.

My bad, I was talking about the 16-85, not the 135.

Those DxO numbers are just weird. They don't correspond to the Photozone numbers or anyone else's numbers. But, DxO mark rates almost every Pentax lens out there, but doesn't rate the 18-135 or 16-85? Probably the two most popular walk around lenses out there.

The 16-45 on DxO mark is rated 18 score and 11 sharpness.
That's identical to the HD DA 21 ltd.

Better than the DA 40, the DA*200, the DA*300, the DA 15 ltd. right behind the FA 50 macro.It's sharper than the 100 macro , the SMC DA 21 ltd.and same sharpness as he DA 35 2.4, DA 70 2.4, FA 50 1.4,

According to DxO it's a great lens. Yet you look at photozone and it's a great value for the money lens, 18-135 and 16-85 class, both of those lenses beat it in some FLs and are worse in others, on Photozone, where you can see some actual measurements. But as a walk around lens 16-45 is extremely limited. And there's something fishy about the DxO mark scores. They aren't corroborated by any other site. With the 16-45 you're talking a range of 29mm and a 2.8:1 zoom ratio.. The 16-85 is 69mm and a 5.3:1 zoom range/, the 18-135 is 117mm. Compared to the 16-85 you talking about less than half the range. Compared to the 18-135 7.5:1. You are talking about 1/2 of the focal range. So less than half the range, for less than half the price. Unless you get it for $150 I don't see it as a bargain, and you're giving up WR and the ring motor.

As well, the lack of WR also makes it less than desirable for a walk around lens, ad screw drive instead of a nice ring motor like the 18-135 or 16-85. Even if the optical rating is as DxO says, and that is clearly open to dispute, there are a lot of negatives.


In fact anyone considering this as a walk around lens has to seriously consider if 45mm is long enough for their walking around. The zoom range is extremely limited. Probably the only one less limited being the the 20-40.

As a walk around lens, the 18-135 and 16-85 compared to the 16-45, the 16-45 is only half a lens. You still have to buy the other half. Like the 28-105 or something like that.

I am quite interested by the IQ however. DxO says one thing, Photozone says something else, who's got a tie breaker? I tend to lean towards the Photozone numbers just because they provide an FL by FL breakdown. DxO gives you one rating for the whole zoom range. Does anyone know what that actually means?

[audiobomber]

My bad, I was talking about the 16-85, not the 135.

Nice lens, but isn't the 16-85mm out of the OP's price range?

[normhead]

It took along time for me to finish the post, sorry. Essentially, the DxO numbers are extremely suspect, the 16-45 compared to the 18-135 or 16-85 is only half a lens, with no telephoto component, and being half a lens, with no ring motor or WR, it's really bad deal unless you get it for $150 or less. And you still need something to cover 50mm to 100mm. In my mind an 18-135 at $300 is a better value. Two lenses for the price of one in terms of FL, and WR.

its quite interesting that DxO mark rates it so much higher than the DA*16-50. That's gotta suck for Pentax, if people can get better glass for a bargain basement price instead of their premium offering. Call me suspicious.

[victormeldrew]

The 18-135 is a lot of lens for the money though - a lot of people speak very highly of it.

I'm sure Pentax could ask a considerably higher price for it and still sell plenty...perhaps with the HD coating they could ask double the price. But I think it's priced that way for a reason...as a first upgrade from the DA-L kit, getting a great lens for a small price will encourage people to buy into Pentax glass early on. If the first upgrade an amateur can afford is poor quality and the first good glass is unaffordable, it wouldn't make good business sense and people would either stick to the DAL or go elsewhere...to Tamron for example.

So I think it's not the lens quality that's suspect, it's perhaps an artificially low price for tactical reasons.

[UncleVanya]

I should like to also point out the fact that DXO Mark has no ratings for many many Pentax Zooms if you select the K3 as the testbed. For example no DA 17-70, no DA 18-135, no DA 16-85 etc.
The 16-45 seems like a nice lens with a fairly limited range. I have no objections to it other than the reports of wobbly barrel. Most users who switched to the 16-50 tell me the 16-50 is sharper but that could be a bias born out of their purchase. The fact that they are also dealing with a lens with one full stop more across the board is also a potential factor.

[normhead]

Henry's lists 30 zoom lenses for Pentax, DxO lists 14. The 16-45 isn't listed. They cover a very small portion of Pentax lenses and miss many of the most used and popular lenses. It's hard to look at their list and think they actually know anything about Pentax.

It's hard to look at their test results for the 16-45 and think they know anything about testing lenses.

[Arjay Bee]

The 16-45 is an old lens - I purchased mine in 2006 when I bought my *istDL2. I bought the body with a Sigma 18-55 DC as that was the supplied kit lens in 2006 but immediately purchased the 16-45 as the belief on the boards then was that the 16-45 was an instant step up in IQ and the extra 2mm at the wide end was a big deal over the Pentax kit lens

Saying the kit lens doesn't have a ring motor is not quite fair as not a lot of any Pentax lenses had ring motors 10 years ago. I understand the 16-45 is now discontinued and now is only available second hand. Even new it was relatively inexpensive.

Yes it is only half the full zoom range now available as upgrade lenses. All older zooms that try to maintain reasonable IQ have small zoom ranges, until more recently with the innovation of aspherical lenses, higher specified glass formulations and materials and so on. Back in 2006 I had the DA50-200 as a two lens DA set that covered everything. Plus a couple of Takumars for more specialised usages.

I was happy and am still happy with the 16-45. It is big, and so now my take everywhere is the 21 as I stated earlier. But that is me - the 21 is right in the middle of the 16-45 range and that is the way I see the world.

[audiobomber]

Those DxO numbers are just weird. They don't correspond to the Photozone numbers or anyone else's numbers.

Have you looked closely at Photozone's scores? The 16-45mm is slightly sharper than the DA 21 and has much better borders than the 16-50mm.

[Nicolas06]

There isn't a Pentax prime or zoom at 20-21mm f/4 that will touch the sharpness of the 16-45. While the DA 21 is interesting and adequate wide open, the 16-45 simply is sharper (although with more CA and less overall character). Pentax would do very well to improve the build and provide WR, releasing it with a DC motor, HD coatings and simply re-release in the same optical design. Ultimately, the lens is at least as fast as the other midrange variable aperture zooms on the long end - where the lens speed counts. You also get more consistent exposures with a constant aperture lens.

From photozone it look like even the bad 18-135 sample the reviewer got manage to get significantly better sharpness. And it would look like the 16-85 would do it too. The 21ltd look quite comparable too.

We also should keep in mind that +/- 5% rating is well withing the margin of error of theses tests while sample variation may make much bigger differences.

[Nicolas06]

I'd better clarify what this lens - whatever it turns out to be - will be used for. As mentioned I use vintage glass, enjoying the challenge of shooting manually and setting up everything myself,I feel more that I'm taking the shot and not that a couple of thousand lines of code are doing everything. BUT, there are also plenty of times that shooting manually is a right pain and I just want to let the camera do the work. One of these that I remember well was a quilt and embroidery show (don't laugh, the detail and patterning make great subjects) which was so crowded that it was way too difficult to set up each shot manually. Another was Henty sand dunes in Tasmania where climbing a thirty metre sand dune with a hefty camera pack nearly killed me, hence I'm just after a good walkaround lens, capable of good quality shots, that won't be taxing to use. It won't be my standard lens, that tends to be the Rikenon 28-100, but it must be capable of magazine quality work. I have been published in "Camera for Enthusiast" magazine in Australia and write occasional travel pieces, which is the reason I'm after a step up from the kit lens without breaking the bank. Some excellent recommendations, but so far they are panning out more expensive than the Sigma barring a good second hand example coming up, which is something I'll keep my eye out for.

Hal55
,

All lenses are capable of magazine quality in good light. You don't even need APSC for that. But for that example of "embroidery show" you'd need fast lenses... On a tattoo convention I used mostly my FA77 and F135, often at f/2.8 And this kind of show is really nice for cameras because the tattooist need light to work, so it really ease the job of the photographer. f/2.8 is the minimum expectation for indoor work. If you can go away with something like f/2, it does help. Also theses kind of show have very uninterresting and boring background, having them blured is far from being bad.

My point is the requirement for indoor shots are so different than outdoor that it may make no sense to hope being covered by the same lenses.


FA77 f/2.8 iso 1600, 1/200s


F135 f/2.8, iso 800, 1/320


F135 f/2.8, iso800 1/50

[Nicolas06]

The 18-135 is a lot of lens for the money though - a lot of people speak very highly of it.

I'm sure Pentax could ask a considerably higher price for it and still sell plenty...perhaps with the HD coating they could ask double the price. But I think it's priced that way for a reason...as a first upgrade from the DA-L kit, getting a great lens for a small price will encourage people to buy into Pentax glass early on. If the first upgrade an amateur can afford is poor quality and the first good glass is unaffordable, it wouldn't make good business sense and people would either stick to the DAL or go elsewhere...to Tamron for example.

So I think it's not the lens quality that's suspect, it's perhaps an artificially low price for tactical reasons.

The 18-135 for double price with HD coating is called the 16-85...

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

From photozone it look like even the bad 18-135 sample the reviewer got manage to get significantly better sharpness. And it would look like the 16-85 would do it too. The 21ltd look quite comparable too.

We also should keep in mind that +/- 5% rating is well withing the margin of error of theses tests while sample variation may make much bigger differences.

Please don't ascribe info from Photozone that simply isn't the case, even if you are confused about the differences in a lens tested with a 10mp sensor as opposed to 16mp. I will amend my original comment about zooms in that the 16-85 is closely comparable to the 16-45 on the wide end even into the corners. I had forgotten that it is capable of holding f/4 at the wider end into the mid-20s; I'm not fond of mid-range zooms lacking constant aperture. These two lenses are very close to the EX range all the way to the borders.

However, the 18-135 is far from that EX range once off the center area - and is half the price of the 16-85 for good reason beyond the coatings difference (which is a pretty marginal difference, frankly). I don't have a pony in that race, but based on the photos I've seen and the various serious reviews - the 16-85 is easily the best midrange zoom Pentax has produced. No matter how good the 18-135 sample, I'm yet to see photos that have the depth, sharpness and pop you see from the better lenses. It is marginally sharper with better bokeh than the kit - but that's about it.

[timb64]

That's fighting talk Jim,watch out for the flak!