Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2016, 03:34 PM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,573
My two favourite walk arounders and BTW, both excellent walk around lenses are....modern....18-135....and...drum roll please....vintage...my old Pentax A 35-105mm Macro Zoom.

The A 35-105 is manual focus and has been called by some a stack of primes. It is good, very good.

04-23-2016, 05:01 PM   #62
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
I've posted the actual info so many times, no flak, if he doesn't get it by now, he never will.

At least according to photozone, at 24mm, the 18-135 is probably the better lens, and definitely has much less CA. That a 7.5:1 zoom should be even close to a 3-1 zoom is outrageous. So the 16-45 may be better than the 18-135 over most of their common range, but not through out all their common range. The 18135 is centersharp all through it's range, and for those images from say 60-135, for a very high percentage of the images you are likely to take, will be rated excellent @ƒ5.6. I'm not sure what more you can ask for from a walk around. The ranges where the 16-45 will be better will be wide landscapes like less than 20mm, and more than say 20mm.

I know they are tested on different cameras, but, it's rare for a lens to test as excellent on one format and not on the next, if it exists at all. If anything the 16-45 will not test as well on 16 MP as it does on 10 MP. All the lenses I've seen with aren't as highly rated on 16 MP as they are on 10 MP.

Last edited by normhead; 04-23-2016 at 05:13 PM.
04-23-2016, 08:23 PM   #63
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,796
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If anything the 16-45 will not test as well on 16 MP as it does on 10 MP. All the lenses I've seen with aren't as highly rated on 16 MP as they are on 10 MP.
It depends on the camera. Resolution is dependent on the lens itself, but also on sensor size, number of pixels and blur filter strength. The K10D had fewer pixels (10mp), but a lighter blur filter than the K-5 and achieved slightly higher resolution (8mp vs. 7mp). The K-3 allows the 16-45mm to reach about 60% higher resolution than either (11mp).
Pentax smc PENTAX DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL on Pentax K-3 vs Pentax smc PENTAX DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL on Pentax K-5 vs Pentax smc PENTAX DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL on Pentax K10D

This K-5 II vs. K-5 IIs comparison shows the effect of the blur filter (7mp vs. 9mp):
Pentax smc PENTAX DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL on Pentax K-5 II vs Pentax smc PENTAX DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL on Pentax K-5 IIs
04-23-2016, 08:29 PM   #64
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,573
Geez....I dunno. I have the 16-45, the 21 and the 18-135. The 21 and 18-135 in both my experience and opinion are better than my 16-45. I'm going by my eye and my pics with these different lenses

04-24-2016, 12:22 AM - 1 Like   #65
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
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.
I have seen the 18-135 in the field, my father has one, I used it, and the lens is great corners to corners in the 24-50mm range. At 18mm close one stop and it perform great. That exactly what photozone show. It is the reality of my father sample and apparently too of normhead sample and I would say photozone sample. I don't know whyit should be denied. The lens is bad on border past 70mm, but that say nothing of corners in the kit lens range. The 16-45 stop at 45mm so likely the 18-135 is much better at 135mm... than the 16-45 cropped.

On photozone, the same K5 body, at 24mm the 18-135 is better than the 16-85 at 24mm. A tiny worst wide open on corners, and then better at all other appertures. That by a small margin, but it is. I used the lens at that apperture myself. It is perfect. The DA21 that I also own is sure softer than the 18-135 on borders/corners. I have it and my DA21 sample is softer. And you know what? On the same K5 body again photozone confirm that. Well myself I did the test on K3, so that even more stressful for the lenses.

Now the 16-45 is tested at 10MP only but there no much difference in max resolution. On one body the 10MP the theoretical max is 2350 while on the 16MP body the max is 2750. That's not much. but the 18-135 get significantly better numbers: he get arround 2600 on center from f/4 to f/8 while the 16-45 get 2300 at f/4 and f/5.6 but only 2200 f/8... Even if we do increase the 16-45 in proportion to the max ranking that is possible to get on K5, the results are very similar. On corners, the 18-135 get up to 2371 at f/8 while the max of the 16-45 is 2028 at f/5.6... Again apply the ratio to take into account the sensor difference, and you see they perform rougly the same.

If I compare the 16-45 at 24mm to say my old 17-70, they perform the same within 5% at 24mm again and the 17-70 perform the same at 17mm as the 16-45 is performing at 16mm, again give or take 5%. In fact on there shared range, the 17-70 is always as good as the 16-45 but cover up to 70. And both are constant f/4 primes.

Even the DA15 that is supposed to be worse on corners than the DA16-45... Well DA15 is worse at f/4, but on the same 10MP body manage to be better than the 16-45 closed down on borders and keep better center.


The bold assumption that the 16-45 is something like the best lens ever, in any part of its range, even if we restrict to Pentax lenses is completely wrong. On the whole range the 17-70 is very similar, 16-85 too. It doesn't get the flare resistance or constrast or DA15 (or resolution), neither the small size or colors of DA21 and that one while softer at f/4 is as sharp or better starting f/5.6, the 18-135 is sharper at 24mm, starting 31mm this is of course even worse with contenders like FA31, DA35ltd or FA43... Hey even the 18-55 kit lens seems to match the 16-45 in the 35-55mm range.

And now you have lesmore49 that has a 18-135, a 21 and a 16-45 and he find both the 21 and 18-135 are better than the 16-45...

The 16-45 is great and cheap. It produce great pictures. But we have to stop the cult that it is best ever. It is simply not.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 04-24-2016 at 12:33 AM.
04-24-2016, 03:09 AM   #66
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,515
The 16-45 is great and cheap.

Which is what I said on page 2 post 28 when I first mentioned the lens in this thread. It is good for what it is and price point but there are newer better and more expensive lenses out there now.
04-24-2016, 04:13 AM   #67
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,550
In real life I would never worry that I really need to shoot at f5.6 and 22.5mm and Photozone numerology tells me that what I've got on the camera is 5% worse than a lens I could not be bothered to bring along or could not afford to buy.
04-24-2016, 04:17 AM - 1 Like   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
In real life I would never worry that I really need to shoot at f5.6 and 22.5mm and Photozone numerology tells me that what I've got on the camera is 5% worse than a lens I could not be bothered to bring along or could not afford to buy.
+1, this doesn't make sense. There more than 5% difference among sample of a given lens model anyway. And 5% isn't going to be visible at all.

What make the difference is the field curvature that make the DA15 very soft at time, or that one lens flare a lot while the other doesn't... That one can open to f/1.4 while the other open to f/4 or that another one make the picture look lifelike, to pop while some other make them look flat and boring... That one allow you to shoot at focal length the other one doesn't provide...

And even all of that is much much less important than having the good light, good composition, good subject...

04-24-2016, 07:16 AM   #69
Senior Member
mbukal's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: zagreb
Posts: 223
walking, the K 30 fastened DA 17-70 / 4, in the bag for the waist belt DA 12-24 / 4 (DA 55-300 / 4-5.8)

Last edited by mbukal; 04-24-2016 at 07:24 AM.
04-24-2016, 04:16 PM   #70
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
Let's look at the actual numbers, so we can put this to rest. Please pay attention to the ranges of resolution assigned to EX, VG, G, F, P for 16mp vs. 24mp (likely amplified due to AA vs. non AA filter factor). Let's stick to wide open. All modern lenses are pretty decent at f/5.6 - if that setting is stopped down by one stop or a bit more.

At 24mm borders and extreme (corner) the 16-85 is 2295 and 2076 (middle of VG 2070-2410 range, and nudging into the VG range). The 18-135 indicates 2054 border (somewhat below VG) and 1928 extreme (very slightly above the middle of the good range). The 16-45 rates 1959 at border ranking it in the upper third of VG in the 10mp 1750-2050 VG range; the review did not include extreme for 24mm. So, in this instance, it is clear that the 16-45 is slightly ahead of the 16-85 at 24mm, and the 18-135 is quite some distance behind.

Now, you'll be curious to know how the lenses compare where extreme is included - which requires us to look at the numbers at the very wide end. The 18-135 should be superb based on its reputation at the short end, and the fact that 18mm is a heck of alot easier than 16mm. The 16-85 is 1981 border, 1951 extreme (upper good range but well short of 2070 VG line). The 18-135 is 1839 and 1316 - lower half of good range, and well into the POOR range at 18mm where the other two lenses have already sharpened up considerably by narrowing FoV. The 16-45 yields 1959 border (upper third of VG) and 1741 extreme - nearly at the 1750 line where G meets VG. The 16-45 is far closer to VG at extreme than the 16-85, but the 18-135 rates "poor" despite getting the narrower FoV benefit.

I admire the 18-135 for its small size, WR, and OK performance in the lower two-thirds of the range using a good copy, but ultimately it is a superzoom and exhibits those characteristics to an extent. I'm not saying the 16-45 is great at the widest setting, but it is slightly sharper than the 16-85, and a lot sharper than the 18-135 based on the actual measurements (as in facts). In my opinion, the 16-45 is sharpest at 20-21mm, but we don't have test information on that. It is my sense that it is somewhat sharper than the DA 21 I have. Of course, they are pretty close, and sample variation will have an impact.

Unless the Photozone copy of the 18-135 was dropped onto concrete from the 2nd floor (they didn't say that), that copy is so poor that you have to wonder how much better the lens can get. I'm yet to see an expert review or images indicating that the lens competes well with the better zooms of shorter range. In that regard, given the 16-85's wide range - I'm impressed.
04-24-2016, 04:49 PM   #71
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,796
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Geez....I dunno. I have the 16-45, the 21 and the 18-135. The 21 and 18-135 in both my experience and opinion are better than my 16-45. I'm going by my eye and my pics with these different lenses
I had both at the same time for a couple of years. The 16-45mm handily outperforms the 18-135 across their common range, even comparing 16mm to 18mm. I have photos that show that. I suspect you have a defective 16-45. There are more around than there should be. Build quality is not a strength.
04-24-2016, 06:05 PM   #72
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
QuoteQuote:
At 24mm borders and extreme (corner) the 16-85 is 2295 and 2076 (middle of VG 2070-2410 range, and nudging into the VG range). The 18-135 indicates 2054 border (somewhat below VG) and 1928 extreme (very slightly above the middle of the good range). The 16-45 rates 1959 at border ranking it in the upper third of VG in the 10mp 1750-2050 VG range; the review did not include extreme for 24mm. So, in this instance, it is clear that the 16-45 is slightly ahead of the 16-85 at 24mm, and the 18-135 is quite some distance behind.
Not clear at all. The 31 ltd. which is tested on both sensors, is off the charts high at 10 MP 2344 or , out of a possible 2350 s a 99.7% rating. , yet on a 16 MP sensor it's down to 93% efficiency it has lost 7%. Look at the DA 70 2.4 and you'll see anticipating a 7% drop in rated efficiency between 10 MP and 16 MP is not at all unreasonable. IN fact if you compare numbers for the 43 ltd. you'll see the drop off could be a lot worse than 7%.



Apply the same numbers to the 16-45 which rates 2296 out of 2350 at 10 MP, or 94% to test out at maybe 88% on a 16MP sensor so maybe 2393. The 18-135 tests out at 2598. That's a noticeable difference in favour of the 18-135 in centre sharpness. I always guess you can see 200 lw/ph. Not only that but but at 24 mm, the 16-45 is not rated edge excellent anywhere, before applying a 7% drop in relative resolution values.as suggested by the two tests on the 31ltd and the performance of the DA 70 and FA 43 ltd. The 18-135 is rated excellent are practically excellent at ƒ5.6 and ƒ8, so on the edges, it's beating the 16-45 straight up, without any reduction.

But you have to expect that were the 16-45 tested against itself at 16 MP the numbers, like the other lenses tested at both 10 MP and 16 MP will not look as good at 16 MP< and because of the higher CA values it could test considerably worse than either the 70 or 31.

But the main thing here is, testing on two separate sensors, you can't really make comparisons, you may be using different lenses even possibly different versions of Imatest,

But the rough evidence suggests the 18-135 is better at 24 mm than either the or the 16-45 or 16-85 for landscape.

Of the four measured ƒ-stops the 18-135 is excellent or very near excellent in in 6 of 12 measured fields. The 16-85 is excellent or near excellent in 4 measured fields. The 16-45 is excellent in 6 measured fields before being handicapped for being tested on a lower resolution sensor. Just from a rough glance there is absolutely no way the 16-45 is better. IN fact after being handicapped for being tested on a lower res. sensor, the 16-45 is very likely to be excellent or near excellent in only 2 measured fields. As a landscape lens the 18-135 at 24 mm, ƒ8 or ƒ5.6 is simply the best there is out there at the moment. Even the 16-50 come no where close to the 18-135 at 24mm, and niether does the FA*24 and probably not the FA 20 ƒ2.8 either.

Now those are the facts. I look at the charts and try and see the big picture, not cherry pick certain apertures and settings trying to make any certain lens look good. So, people can look at how you came to your conclusions and look at how i came to mine and see which are more relevant. There is no part of its range at which the 16-45 come close to matching the performance of the 18-135 at ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 and 24mm where it' is excellent or near excellent in 6 out of nine measured metrics. There just isn't another Pentax lens that can come anywhere close to that. ( Suspect both the tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17059 are better.) I buy my glass for where it's excellent, and learn when to use the areas that are less than excellent.

The 18-135 gives you excellent or near excellent performance in 19 of 60 or 32% of it's resolution metrics. It excels because of it is so strong at 24mm ƒ5,6 and ƒ8, an absolutely stellar landscape lens at that focal length and those apertures.

The 16-85 is excellent or close to excellent in 17 of 45 resolution metrics for a .38 percent of its range. Fortunately or unfortunately it's strong point is 50mm where it garners 8 excellent or near excellent scores out of 12, for a 66% score. Unfortunate because if you take out 50mm, for the rest of it's range it scores 9 out of 33 or 27% excellence. And many of us would switch to a prime to shoot 50mm in any case.

The 16-45 is 11 out of 33 excellent or near excellent test scores, for 33%tested on a 10 MP sensor. The lens it has high CA in common with is the 43 ltd which took the biggest performance hit going from 10 MP to 16 MP . The 43 ltd, which for a prime, has outrageously high CA values. Guess which lens among these three zooms has the outrageously high CA values?

I would expect the 16-45 tested on 16 MP, based on the results of the 31ltd, DA70, and 43ltd. to be no better than 7 out of 36 excellent or near excellent values or 19% excellent values. SO a very short focal range best at 24mm, but no where near the performance of the 18-135 at 24mm ƒ5.6 or ƒ8. It is quite strong compared to everything else at ƒ4 however. SO if you shoot a lot, 24mm ƒ4, it might be the lens for you. But my need for either of these lenses can be completely negated by carrying my FA 50 1.7 and 60-250 along with my 18-135. Two lenses I carry anyway. the 50 for low light. The 60-250 for telephoto.

---------- Post added 04-24-16 at 09:07 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I had both at the same time for a couple of years. The 16-45mm handily outperforms the 18-135 across their common range, even comparing 16mm to 18mm. I have photos that show that. I suspect you have a defective 16-45. There are more around than there should be. Build quality is not a strength.
Based on one guy's experience, with two lenses? Please, that's not road we should be going down. It's evidence, but it's not conclusive. All it takes is two guys that can show the opposite. How do we know you didn't get a good 16-45 and a bad 18-135?

Personally I think if i owned both lenses I could tell you which of my two copies gave the better image. But as Lenrental'com points out. IN lenses of the same class, a good copy of the overall worst lens is better than a bad copy of the the overall best lens, if you look at 50 lenses or more. So I'm quite happy saying that someone might have a copy of the 16-45 that was better than their copy of the 18-135. But that in no way predicts what the outcome of say 50 such tests would be with 50 different lenses. And I doubt the photozone numbers mean that much either. The may have more technical parameters, but they are still one lens against one lens, and therefore meaningless in the big picture.

I do give them a bit more credibility than the "I had this lens and it was better than that lens" type of argument, just because he actually used measurements not subject to tester bias. I've seen many "tests" on the forum where someone posts "this lens I bought on eBay for $100 is better than the 31 ltd." I look at the images and think "the guy is deluding himself." Tester bias is real. So when a guy makes the claim, I have images from both" I don't even know if I looked at the same images if I'd agree with him/her. And the other that could happen would be, like my 35mm test, the top 2 lenses were pretty close in the number of people who liked them and percentage of the vote. Thus for those who prefer one image from one lens, 2/3s of the forum will prefer the image produced by a different lens. The only way I can trust someone else's judgement is if I know from previous tests, that we like the same qualities in a lens. The odds are at least 66% against that happening.

Even if you could clearly show me why you prefer the the 16-45 over the 18-135, (which you can't, you can only show me why you preferred your 16-45 over your 18-135) it would still be unlikely that I would share you preference.

Last edited by normhead; 04-24-2016 at 06:58 PM.
04-24-2016, 06:55 PM   #73
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
Oh my, I can't begin to respond, Norm. You certainly can make comparisons from 16mp to 24mm by interpolation. Sure, it isn't exact, but it is better than ballpark. Read the conclusion on the 18-135. They were a bit stunned that the lens was reported back as within spec when they requested fixing it. Look at the comparables to even the lowly 18-55 WR which is sharper in the corners on the wide end (but does not render nearly as well, IMHO).

Stopped down the 16-45 and 18-135 lenses are close to similar, but that really is the refuge of the wishful. The 16-45 peaks at f/5.6 because the crop sensor will always show the greatest sharpness on a quality lens at that f-stop. An inferior lens - such as the 18-135 - will peak at f/8 simply because the mix of lower resolution and diffusion hit something of a middling sweet point at that aperture. The test of a slow zoom is how well it does wide open - because that's not only where the lens is weakest, but it's where you generally have no choice in terms challenging lighting. Simple stuff we all know well.

Look at the 40mm lenses tested on the 16mp and 24 mp sensors - and you'll see the adjusted match to the various ranges are very close, easily within expected copy variation. (The optical design of the two lenses are the same, so they are expected to test out similarly). These are the two higher spec 40mm lenses, not the xs (which still does well, but seems to have a bit more CA for some reason).

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 04-24-2016 at 07:04 PM.
04-24-2016, 07:12 PM   #74
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
Oh my, I can't begin to respond, Norm. You certainly can make comparisons from 16mp to 24mm by interpolation. Sure, it isn't exact, but it is better than ballpark. Read the conclusion on the 18-135. They were a bit stunned that the lens was reported back as within spec when they requested fixing it. Look at the comparables to even the lowly 18-55 WR which is sharper in the corners on the wide end (but does not render nearly as well, IMHO).
His conclusions are not supported by his data. That's why I don't refer to his conclusion. He has weaker data for lenses he rates a whole point better ad speaks more highly of. And landscape lenses are rarely used wide open. SO for landscape, nothing in this argument makes the 16-45 a better lens. Focusing on wide open apertures , is not what i recommend. I recommend you value a lens for it's best performance and buy it if that performance is valuable to you. Who values ƒ4 performance? Anyone? ƒ2.8 is better in low light, ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 are sharper on most consumer lenses.

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
Stopped down the 16-45 and 18-135 lenses are close to similar, but that really is the refuge of the wishful. The 16-45 peaks at f/5.6 because the crop sensor will always show the greatest sharpness on a quality lens at that f-stop. An interior lens - such as the 18-135 - will peak at f/8 simply because the mix of lower resolution and diffusion hit something of a middling sweet point at that aperture. The test of a slow zoom is how well it does wide open - because that's not only where the lens is weakest, but it's where you generally have no choice in terms challenging lighting. Simple stuff we all know well.
Using a slow lens based on it's widest aperture is kind o like taking knife to a gun fight. Most of us recommend using the right tool for the job. That's what I know. Why don't i worry about the 18-135s 50mm low light capability. Because I'll have the FA 50 1.7, 35 2.4 and 70 2.8 in my camera bag.That's what I use when I need low light performance. Not some ƒ4 lens. You talking about recommending a lens for a use you shouldn't use it for.

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
Look at the 40mm lenses tested on the 16mp and 24 mp sensors - and you'll see the adjusted match to the various ranges are very close, easily within expected copy variation. (The optical design of the two lenses are the same, so they are expected to test out similarly). These are the two higher spec 40mm lenses, not the xs (which still does well, but seems to have a bit more CA for some reason).
With all due respect, I provided you with the exact type of comparison you need to compare a photozone 10 MP tested lens with a Photozone tested 16 MP lens. Those are the numbers we are using. Why are you talking about 16-24 comparisons? That doesn't even make any sense.

I'd love to look at your 40mm numbers to see what you're talking about, I'm a curious guy. but you provided no references.


It occurs to me that we have opposed theories about how to evaluate a camera, you are apparently looking at the lens at it's worst as if you will use the lens at it's worst settings.

I look at lenses at their best settings, to evaluate whether the lens adds anything to my arsenal. I'm more concerned about what lens does well , than what it does poorly. Which clarifies why we are opposite sides of this issue. The simple fact, you can say it's the worst, because at some settings it is, while I can say it's the best, because at some settings it is, and we can both be right.

Last edited by normhead; 04-25-2016 at 06:08 AM.
04-24-2016, 08:40 PM   #75
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,515
Just for chuckles - which reminds me - the 16-45 ALWAYS requires compensation +1/3 to +2/3 of a stop no matter the scene - this pic got +1/3 due to all the bright sand.


Rottnest Island - summer scene 16-45 @ 21mm 1/500sec f8 K20D ISO200



Seisia Wharf - after sunset - 16-45 @ 16mm 10sec (on tripod) F11 ISO 200 *istDL2 August 2006 - almost 10 years ago - (It did okay)



Rainbow Bay - Gold Coast Last ball 16mm 1/13sec F14 ISO200 + 0.7ev

The 16-45 also has quite a useful macro (close focussing) end as well:



45mm 1/800sec f7.1 ISO200 -1.0 ev comp.



45mm 1/125sec f4.0 ISO100 K20D

Stem of wild grass - 16-45

Last edited by Arjay Bee; 04-24-2016 at 09:48 PM.
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!
24mm, copy, iq, k-mount, k100d, k50, kit, lens, lenses, look, ltd, mk, mp, pentax lens, people, performance, range, reference, rikenon, sensor, slr lens, tests, upgrade, values, vg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Walk around the property-looking for colour normhead Post Your Photos! 2 05-18-2014 04:22 PM
The kit lens is not a good walk-around lens. ChristianRock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 58 02-15-2014 10:30 AM
DA 40mm LTD. is the perfect walk-around lens tele_pathic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 11-18-2013 10:40 AM
Can't decide on the optimal walk around lens Deepbyrne Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 34 11-21-2012 11:27 PM
Walk around lens for backup Schwatmann Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-24-2009 09:11 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:52 PM. | 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