DA 16-85: How much decentering is too much?

**mgvh** · 05-21-2017, 02:54 PM

I have the DA 18-135. It's been a fine lens. I've lived with the edge softness (which is not due to decentering). For the shooting I do, I wanted something a little wider and a little better quality. The DA 16-85 is the obvious choice. I can't afford a new one, but I found a used one on Amazon. Externally it's perfect, and the glass is spotless.

I'm putting it through its paces, since I do have a 30-day return policy. First impressions:

I really like the extra 16mm at the wide end.
It is a higher quality lens than the 18-135, and it isn't that much bigger.
The center is definitely sharper, and the edges are much better for the most part, but...

The lens clearly has a little bit of a decentering issue.
At the 16mm end, the effect can be reduced by closing down. Here is a shot at f7.1. The cedar trees were on the left and right edges of the shot. You should be able to see that the right side is softer.

The decentering is a bit less noticeable as I zoom. Not much to speak of in the 35-60mm range. At 85mm, the softness has moved to the left side, though it is not as pronounced.

For comparison, I took the same shot with the 18-135mm at 18mm and moved back just a bit to get the same field of view. You should be able to see that the 16-85 on the left is a bit softer than the 18-135 on the right, both showing the same right side of the pic. (The 16-85 is superior to the 18-135 everywhere else in the picture.)

Now I realize there really isn't a perfect lens. There will always be some edge softness. The softness varies with aperture and with zoom. There is always some compromise that is made.

I'm trying to decide whether to return/exchange the lens. I got it for a good price, and, as noted, externally it's in perfect condition. There is also no guarantee that I will get a better lens. (Tibbets went through 5 copies of the 16-85 to get one he was satisfied with!)

So, how much decentering is too much? Is it just a matter of deciding what one can live with, balancing out the lens quality and price, etc.? I'm inclined to keep the lens, since I don't know about getting a better one at the same price, but I'd appreciate hearing how others decide whether to return/exchange a lens or not. Thanks!

**Pentax Syntax** · 05-21-2017, 03:57 PM

The decentering you show is relatively minor and may not effect most shots. Only you can decide how much softness is too much. Keep in mind that many landscape shots will be stopped down and the softness will be much less pronounced. Looks like you got a pretty good lens. I tested my 16-85 upon purchase last year and detected some decentering. You also might have a look here (the forum staff can remove if this is a breach :-):

Lens Rentals | Blog

Interesting read and fits my experiences:-)

**Digitalis** · 05-21-2017, 04:08 PM

I have seen worse. Some would say that any amount of de-centering is bad - however this is not a particularity realistic ideal, especially in zoom lenses which are inherently more complex, and have more moving parts than most prime lenses. In zoom lenses there are more points where optical misalignment can occur there is a correlation towards a higher defect rate among lenses with wider FOV. For most purposes, this lens will be OK.

Na Horuk · 05-21-2017, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by mgvh

So, how much decentering is too much? Is it just a matter of deciding what one can live with, balancing out the lens quality and price, etc.? I'm inclined to keep the lens, since I don't know about getting a better one at the same price, but I'd appreciate hearing how others decide whether to return/exchange a lens or not. Thanks!

Yeah, comes down to your needs, and how much of a hassle you are willing to go through. I had my Samyang 14mm replaced because it was decentered. But the shop was kind of annoying about it. The second copy still shows some decentering, but I accepted it. Its good enough and going through the shop again would not be worth it. Especially considering the third copy might be just as bad or worse.

So, while the 16-85mm is not as famous as that Samyang for decentering, you still might not get a perfect copy. I would say if you shoot a lot of things at the wide angle and its the type of photos where you need sharpness across the frame, then go and get it replaced. If you are mostly a telephoto shooter or your UWA photos focus on other things, like colors and contrasts... well, you know.
You can still take it to the shop and just ask their opinion, to see how they respond. If they let you test the second copy before replacement, on the spot, then you don't have much to fear, manual focus with focus peaking

The stuff I see in those crops is not too terrible. Do one more test near the minimum focusing distance to judge the CA and DoF better. Wide open aperture, 2 sec timer

**Scorpio71GR** · 05-21-2017, 06:18 PM

Owning both the 18-135 and the 16-85 I would have to say I would return it. I say this because the 16-85 is capable of better results. Unless you feel you can live with it. The 16-85 is worth getting a good copy in my opinion. I purchased mine here in the marketplace so I was able to see some shots taken with before I bought it. At 16mm my 16-85 outperforms my DA*16-50 across the entire frame. The 16-50 is superior in the center.

16mm f5.6 on the K3.

**clickclick** · 05-21-2017, 07:20 PM

I'd return it. I've had a couple 16-85's go through my hands, and I think they can/should be better than that. Too me, it's visibly blurry, and it would bug me. Others obviously are OK with it, so it does get down to how addicted you are to zooming in, how big you might print it, how sharp does it have to be?

**clackers** · 05-21-2017, 07:33 PM

You're entitled to a refund, Mgvh, so you should ask for it.

Lenses cost a lot of money to tolerate not being up to spec.

**mgvh** · 05-21-2017, 07:40 PM

Thank you, all. I'm still undecided. I do indeed think the lens could be better, but I'm not sure that I can get a better used one for the $440 I paid for this one.
I guess I'll do more shooting, and see what difference focal length / aperture makes, and whether I can live with the results without being annoyed by the softness.

automorphism · 05-21-2017, 10:19 PM

It looks like too much to me. What happens when you capture a great shot and the decentering is to blame for ruining it? It's hard enough to get good shots with a good lens. Not worth $440 for sure. I paid half as much for a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and it produces better - and make no mistake, there are better lenses on Ebay out there. It's a hassle but why not get one of those?

**mgvh** · 05-27-2017, 11:37 AM

I decided to return the lens. If I'm going to pay $440 for a lens, even if that's a fair price for a used one, that softness would always bother me. If it were an issue at the tele end, I might not mind it so much, but I got the lens to shoot at 16mm. If I would have to crop out that right side due to softness (which was softer than my 18-135mm at 18mm), then I might as well just stick w/ the 18-135. I'm thinking I'll try another copy of the 16-85... Thanks again for your advice!

**mgvh** · 06-06-2017, 02:01 PM - **1 Like**

UPDATE 2017.6.6: I found a used 16-85 at B&H for $440 (same price as first one). This one is MUCH BETTER. Maybe a tad soft on the right side but nothing to complain about. Whereas the first 16-85 (at 18mm) in comparison to my 18-135 had similar sharpness in the center, a bit better on the left, but much worse on the right, this new one is a bit better in the center, and noticeably much better on both edges. I'm glad I returned the first one. (It was from Amazon Warehouse, and the return was free and no-hassle.)

05-21-2017, 02:54 PM	#1
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029	DA 16-85: How much decentering is too much? I have the DA 18-135. It's been a fine lens. I've lived with the edge softness (which is not due to decentering). For the shooting I do, I wanted something a little wider and a little better quality. The DA 16-85 is the obvious choice. I can't afford a new one, but I found a used one on Amazon. Externally it's perfect, and the glass is spotless. I'm putting it through its paces, since I do have a 30-day return policy. First impressions: I really like the extra 16mm at the wide end. It is a higher quality lens than the 18-135, and it isn't that much bigger. The center is definitely sharper, and the edges are much better for the most part, but... The lens clearly has a little bit of a decentering issue. At the 16mm end, the effect can be reduced by closing down. Here is a shot at f7.1. The cedar trees were on the left and right edges of the shot. You should be able to see that the right side is softer. The decentering is a bit less noticeable as I zoom. Not much to speak of in the 35-60mm range. At 85mm, the softness has moved to the left side, though it is not as pronounced. For comparison, I took the same shot with the 18-135mm at 18mm and moved back just a bit to get the same field of view. You should be able to see that the 16-85 on the left is a bit softer than the 18-135 on the right, both showing the same right side of the pic. (The 16-85 is superior to the 18-135 everywhere else in the picture.) Now I realize there really isn't a perfect lens. There will always be some edge softness. The softness varies with aperture and with zoom. There is always some compromise that is made. I'm trying to decide whether to return/exchange the lens. I got it for a good price, and, as noted, externally it's in perfect condition. There is also no guarantee that I will get a better lens. (Tibbets went through 5 copies of the 16-85 to get one he was satisfied with!) So, how much decentering is too much? Is it just a matter of deciding what one can live with, balancing out the lens quality and price, etc.? I'm inclined to keep the lens, since I don't know about getting a better one at the same price, but I'd appreciate hearing how others decide whether to return/exchange a lens or not. Thanks!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Another person with too much money and too much time	Murra54	Post Your Photos!	10	02-15-2016 09:14 PM
DA 16-85 vs. DA* 16-50; which is a better travel lens?	Newtophotos	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	41	01-08-2016 08:32 AM
DA* 16-50, does this look like decentering to you?	elpolodiablo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-19-2013 08:50 AM
Possible 16-50 DA* Decentering	Gridlinked	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	05-05-2009 12:05 AM
When is too much, too much?	lbenac	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	05-03-2009 04:49 PM

05-21-2017, 03:57 PM	#2
Pentax Syntax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 595	The decentering you show is relatively minor and may not effect most shots. Only you can decide how much softness is too much. Keep in mind that many landscape shots will be stopped down and the softness will be much less pronounced. Looks like you got a pretty good lens. I tested my 16-85 upon purchase last year and detected some decentering. You also might have a look here (the forum staff can remove if this is a breach :-): Lens Rentals \| Blog Interesting read and fits my experiences:-)

05-21-2017, 04:08 PM	#3
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I have seen worse. Some would say that any amount of de-centering is bad - however this is not a particularity realistic ideal, especially in zoom lenses which are inherently more complex, and have more moving parts than most prime lenses. In zoom lenses there are more points where optical misalignment can occur there is a correlation towards a higher defect rate among lenses with wider FOV. For most purposes, this lens will be OK.

05-21-2017, 04:18 PM	#4
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by mgvh So, how much decentering is too much? Is it just a matter of deciding what one can live with, balancing out the lens quality and price, etc.? I'm inclined to keep the lens, since I don't know about getting a better one at the same price, but I'd appreciate hearing how others decide whether to return/exchange a lens or not. Thanks! Yeah, comes down to your needs, and how much of a hassle you are willing to go through. I had my Samyang 14mm replaced because it was decentered. But the shop was kind of annoying about it. The second copy still shows some decentering, but I accepted it. Its good enough and going through the shop again would not be worth it. Especially considering the third copy might be just as bad or worse. So, while the 16-85mm is not as famous as that Samyang for decentering, you still might not get a perfect copy. I would say if you shoot a lot of things at the wide angle and its the type of photos where you need sharpness across the frame, then go and get it replaced. If you are mostly a telephoto shooter or your UWA photos focus on other things, like colors and contrasts... well, you know. You can still take it to the shop and just ask their opinion, to see how they respond. If they let you test the second copy before replacement, on the spot, then you don't have much to fear, manual focus with focus peaking The stuff I see in those crops is not too terrible. Do one more test near the minimum focusing distance to judge the CA and DoF better. Wide open aperture, 2 sec timer

05-21-2017, 06:18 PM	#5
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,005	Owning both the 18-135 and the 16-85 I would have to say I would return it. I say this because the 16-85 is capable of better results. Unless you feel you can live with it. The 16-85 is worth getting a good copy in my opinion. I purchased mine here in the marketplace so I was able to see some shots taken with before I bought it. At 16mm my 16-85 outperforms my DA*16-50 across the entire frame. The 16-50 is superior in the center. 16mm f5.6 on the K3.

05-21-2017, 07:20 PM	#6
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	I'd return it. I've had a couple 16-85's go through my hands, and I think they can/should be better than that. Too me, it's visibly blurry, and it would bug me. Others obviously are OK with it, so it does get down to how addicted you are to zooming in, how big you might print it, how sharp does it have to be?

05-21-2017, 07:33 PM	#7
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	You're entitled to a refund, Mgvh, so you should ask for it. Lenses cost a lot of money to tolerate not being up to spec.

05-21-2017, 07:40 PM	#8
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029 Original Poster	Thank you, all. I'm still undecided. I do indeed think the lens could be better, but I'm not sure that I can get a better used one for the $440 I paid for this one. I guess I'll do more shooting, and see what difference focal length / aperture makes, and whether I can live with the results without being annoyed by the softness.

05-21-2017, 10:19 PM	#9
automorphism Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 791	It looks like too much to me. What happens when you capture a great shot and the decentering is to blame for ruining it? It's hard enough to get good shots with a good lens. Not worth $440 for sure. I paid half as much for a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and it produces better - and make no mistake, there are better lenses on Ebay out there. It's a hassle but why not get one of those?

05-27-2017, 11:37 AM	#10
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029 Original Poster	I decided to return the lens. If I'm going to pay $440 for a lens, even if that's a fair price for a used one, that softness would always bother me. If it were an issue at the tele end, I might not mind it so much, but I got the lens to shoot at 16mm. If I would have to crop out that right side due to softness (which was softer than my 18-135mm at 18mm), then I might as well just stick w/ the 18-135. I'm thinking I'll try another copy of the 16-85... Thanks again for your advice!

06-06-2017, 02:01 PM - 1 Like	#11
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029 Original Poster	UPDATE 2017.6.6: I found a used 16-85 at B&H for $440 (same price as first one). This one is MUCH BETTER. Maybe a tad soft on the right side but nothing to complain about. Whereas the first 16-85 (at 18mm) in comparison to my 18-135 had similar sharpness in the center, a bit better on the left, but much worse on the right, this new one is a bit better in the center, and noticeably much better on both edges. I'm glad I returned the first one. (It was from Amazon Warehouse, and the return was free and no-hassle.)