[timb64]

I'll jump in here...

I found the shifting view annoying rather than being a practical issue, as such. For tripod shooting, it can potentially require a slight re-adjustment in framing after focusing - but that's not exactly a deal-breaker; just something to be aware of.

If I remember correctly, the first DA16-85 I owned was particularly bad for the shifting view during focusing. The replacement unit wasn't as bad in this respect - though it was still noticeable - but, sadly, it was quite badly de-centered such that the upper right portion of the frame was soft, even at f/8. But for the de-centering, I'd probably have kept that copy...

Hi Mike,
Thanks for that explanation,
Tim

---------- Post added 11-04-19 at 04:30 PM ----------

Hi again, Tim..

As BigMackCam mentioned, a jittery framing hyperaction in the viewfinder is mostly annoying even more so at longer focal lengths; I can't confirm yet if there is actually a drop of successful focus rate stemming from this unusual behaviour. All I fear is that, unlike in MF mode where one can controle such hyperactivity, in AF mode it seems to delay the timely obtention of a positive focus confirmation. In my case, though, the rendering of (well-focused) pictures don't seem to be so much affected by BigMackCam's de-centered glass issue.

As soon I get my lens back from Ricoh's hands, I'll do my best to answer you with pictures. In the meantime, could you please let me know if yours also displays more or less the "jumpy" characteristics described above? I'm not here to bemoan my investment into Ricoh Pentax products as a consumer, it has more to do with finding inner peace as a new owner of this somewhat different lens.

Hi Daniel,

I've always found my 16-85 to focus very quickly and accurately. (Certainly much better than my other lens a non-PLM 55-300!).

It has never displayed the type of problem you relate and it's a shame a certain proportion of the examples available haven't been filtered out by Quality Control at Ricoh Pentax.

My Flickr page is accessible from my signature below on the Desktop site and I frequently post here:

DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - PentaxForums.com

Good luck with results once you get your lens back.

Regards

Tim

---

Last edited by timb64; 11-04-2019 at 09:31 AM.

[Marathonianbull]

Thank you Tim,

As it turns out, my suspicious 16-85mm lens is staying at Ricoh’s for further evaluation. I have no idea how / when / if they will be able to improve my enjoyment of it. I wish for the best, and remain in fact quite confident of reaching a happy ending within the current decade. We’re their ‘market’ after all!

[Marathonianbull]

Still without news from Ricoh Canada or Sun Camera Service... Will see. Has anybody here been through similar procedural drudgeries with a flawed, brand new lens sent back under warranty!?

* Encouraging update, as of Nov 18, 2918: Sun Camera Service, authorized to dismantle any optical gem on behalf or Ricoh Imaging Canada, is now working on my obviously flawed-out-of-the-box 'HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm WR'. Expecting a replacement piece (no idea which one, though), in order to get rid of that weird "jumping frame" issue. As a bonus I guess that they will also be able to calibrate everything by the same token, so that I can at last appreciate its true beauty. Hope they don't leave any dust spec inside, given its intended WR qualities.

FINAL UPDATE, DEC 5, 2019: Ricoh Canada has just confirmed indirectly that this lens, by specs, cannot be corrected. A honnest roundtrip to its only Canadian Authorized Repair Center Sun Camera does improve things a bit, by virtue of a replaced GRM Circuit Board and a competent lens calibration (plus oil galore), but the truth of the matter is that it came back with its same dreaded "jumping frame" characterstics!!! The lesson of this story: awesome lens perhaps, but more or less prone to such "compositional shift" (as a Japanese reviewer pointed out) even brand new as mine was; try it for yourself before buying. Last note: Ricoh Canada has refused to exchange my unit, which also confirms that they're all more or less flawed.

[tibbitts]

Because I didn’t know that then: my only zoom, the HD 20-40mm, wasn’t wide enough to my taste so the 16-85mm was theoretically very attractive especially given its positive reception. Its IQ was good, but not as much as the Limited in the relevant focal length (20-40mm). While my 16-85mm was in transit to Sun Camera c/o Ricoh Canada last week, I bought a DA* 16-50mm in order to take advantage of the autumnal colours at wider than 20mm. I was pleasantly shocked by its beautiful rendering (similar to the 20-40mm, actually). Better isn’t always better for everybody, but I have now formed my own narrow opinion about those three great lenses. To be more precise, colours and contrasts are a little punchier w/ 20-40mm & 16-50mm; sharpness a little higher, colours a little more subdued w/ 16-85mm (?) The “jumping frame” issue isn’t very helpful, though!

I don't own either of them, but in general the concensus on the forum seems to be that the 20-40 and (especially) 16-50 are not stellar examples of high-end Pentax lenses, and especially the 16-50 has very dated coatings compared to the 16-85. So I'm surprised by your findings.

[Des]

in general the concensus on the forum seems to be that the 20-40 and (especially) 16-50 are not stellar examples of high-end Pentax lenses

I can't speak about the 16-50, but I don't think most owners of the 20-40 would agree with this. (See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247859-da-limited-zoom-club.html - note the work of @BruceBanner.) I agree with @Marathonianbull that the 20-40 has punchy colours and contrast (like other DA Limiteds). I also have the DA 15, FA 43 and FA 77 and it sits comfortably alongside them. Certainly the 20-40 has its issues (e.g. although it is sharp enough, it is not the sharpest lens I own), but it's worthy of the Limited moniker IMO, both for the quality of the images and for its build quality.

I don't read @Marathonianbull as deprecating the images from the 16-85. He just likes the images from the 16-50 or 20-40 more. That's a matter of taste.

[edri]

In the end what is the conclusion? Is this lens16-85mm worth to buying now or not? It's Black Friday time Have the copies sold today issues mentioned here or they been solved? Is it still a high probability of getting a de-centred lemon or with other problems?
I already have 20-40mm, 18-135mm and 15mm for wide angles.

[Des]

I already have 20-40mm, 18-135mm and 15mm for wide angles.

So do I. I have dithered for years about replacing the 18-135 with the 16-85. Really I have no complaints about the 18-135 (I have a good copy) - its centre sharpness is excellent, colours are good and the versatility is very handy at times (e.g. on a walk or boat cruise). All I would expect from the 16-85 is better edge/corner performance, possibly better bokeh, plus those extra 2mm of width and the HD coatings. Is that worth it for the changeover cost, extra bulk and shorter range? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Personally I wouldn't be deterred by a few bad experiences, especially if buying new.

---

Last edited by Des; 11-17-2019 at 05:21 PM.

[BigMackCam]

In the end what is the conclusion? Is this lens16-85mm worth to buying now or not? It's Black Friday time Have the copies sold today issues mentioned here or they been solved? Is it still a high probability of getting a de-centred lemon or with other problems?
I already have 20-40mm, 18-135mm and 15mm for wide angles.

I'm not sure any of us can reliably say that all current copies of the DA16-85 would be free of the issues discussed, or any others. But, there are many happy and satisfied owners of the lens, and only a few (including myself) who've posted in these forums regarding any problems with it.

So long as you're buying new from a reputable source, you have no real risk, IMHO. You can check the lens for decent image quality in the centre, borders and corners at both the wide and long ends, and look out for the "jumping" view during focusing. If you're happy with your copy, great. If not, return it and either ask for a replacement or refund

[edri]

Thank you for the remarks. Another question, 16-85 suffer from creeping zoom? 18-135, unfortunately suffer from this.

[timb64]

Thank you for the remarks. Another question, 16-85 suffer from creeping zoom? 18-135, unfortunately suffer from this.

Never had a zoom creep problem with my 16-85 or its predecessor 18-135.Is it only that lens you have the problem with?Have you checked that all the port covers on the camera body are firmly closed?

[edri]

Yes, the port covers are closed firmly. Creeping zoom manifests when the lens is fitted with the hood and a polarization filter. If nothing is mounted on the lens, then all is well, there is no creep zoom.

[Marathonianbull]

Still without news from Ricoh Canada or Sun Camera Service... Will see. Has anybody here been through similar procedural drudgeries with a flawed, brand new lens sent back under warranty!?

* Encouraging update, as of Nov 18, 2918: Sun Camera Service, authorized to dismantle any optical gem on behalf or Ricoh Imaging Canada, is now working on my obviously flawed-out-of-the-box 'HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm WR'. Expecting a replacement piece (no idea which one, though), in order to get rid of that weird "jumping frame" issue. As a bonus I guess that they will also be able to calibrate everything by the same token, so that I can at last appreciate its true beauty. Hope they don't leave any dust spec inside, given its intended WR qualities.

FINAL UPDATE, DEC 5, 2019: Ricoh Canada has just confirmed indirectly that this lens, by specs, cannot be corrected. A honnest roundtrip to its only Canadian Authorized Repair Center Sun Camera does improve things a bit, by virtue of a replaced GRM Circuit Board and a competent lens calibration (plus oil galore), but the truth of the matter is that it came back with its same dreaded "jumping frame" characterstics!!! The lesson of this story: awesome lens perhaps, but more or less prone to such "compositional shift" (as a Japanese reviewer pointed out) even brand new as mine was; try it for yourself before buying. Last note: Ricoh Canada has refused to exchange my unit, which also confirms that they're all more or less flawed.

[BigMackCam]

FINAL UPDATE, DEC 5, 2019: Ricoh Canada has just confirmed indirectly that this lens, by specs, cannot be corrected. A honnest roundtrip to its only Canadian Authorized Repair Center Sun Camera does improve things a bit, by virtue of a replaced GRM Circuit Board and a competent lens calibration (plus oil galore), but the truth of the matter is that it came back with its same dreaded "jumping frame" characterstics!!! The lesson of this story: awesome lens perhaps, but more or less prone to such "compositional shift" (as a Japanese reviewer pointed out) even brand new as mine was; try it for yourself before buying. Last note: Ricoh Canada has refused to exchange my unit, which also confirms that they're all more or less flawed.

Thanks for the update.

In one sense, it's good news that your lens is operating within Ricoh's expectations. I own various bits of gear (not just photography-related) that didn't initially meet my expectations in terms of operation and/or performance - but, once I ascertained they were working as the manufacturer expected and/or in common with other users' experiences, I learned to live with the idiosyncrasies. After all, few products are perfect in every way.

For some, the DA16-85 will be - as you describe it - an awesome lens, and will meet all their expectations. But it's good that folks should know about this "jumping frame" behaviour during focusing, so they can consider it when buying.

[timb64]

My copy must be on the "less flawed" end of the spectrum as I've never experienced the problem described!

[BigMackCam]

My copy must be on the "less flawed" end of the spectrum as I've never experienced the problem described!

Given the relatively small number of reports, I suspect the larger proportion of these lenses either don't demonstrate the behaviour at all, or show to such a small extent that it's not an issue or aggravation. Even for those copies that clearly demonstrate it, many folks simply won't care so long as the lens produces nice images. The two I tried both had "jumpy frame" to different degrees, but that's way too small a sample from which to draw any conclusions. I chalk it down to bad luck...