[Petermgr]

Hi everyone,

I have been trying the Pentax 18-250mm lens and am considering going for the 16-45mm lens instead, and then maybe add a zoom lens down the road.

Just wondering what the opinions are of the image quality, lens speed, focusing, etc of the 16-45mm lens compared to the 18-250mm lens in the range of 18-45?

Thanks

Peter

[k100d]

the 16-45 is supposed to be a very good lens overall, where as the 18-250 is good for a Superzoom. you can find technical reviews at www.photozone.de or many user reviews here in the Lens Review Database

[audiobomber]

Hi everyone,

I have been trying the Pentax 18-250mm lens and am considering going for the 16-45mm lens instead, and then maybe add a zoom lens down the road.

Just wondering what the opinions are of the image quality, lens speed, focusing, etc of the 16-45mm lens compared to the 18-250mm lens in the range of 18-45?

Thanks

Peter

I have both. IMO the 16-45 has significantly better IQ: sharper, better control of CA, nicer colour rendition, lower distortion. Speed is virtually equal. My 18-250 creeps like crazy, so I have to keep it locked all the time. I can't think of a single parameter that favours the 18-250mm in their common range.

I like my 18-250mm a lot for what it is, a convenient all-rounder with good IQ (i.e. better IQ than 18-55mm, not as good as 16-45mm). I mount it when I don't want to, or can't, change lenses.

[Shashinki]

how about DA17-70mm? or do you have *ist/K110/K100D?

[beaumont]

Hi everyone,

I have been trying the Pentax 18-250mm lens and am considering going for the 16-45mm lens instead, and then maybe add a zoom lens down the road.

Just wondering what the opinions are of the image quality, lens speed, focusing, etc of the 16-45mm lens compared to the 18-250mm lens in the range of 18-45?

Thanks

Peter

I'm thinking that this really is an apples to oranges comparison, as they really do have two different purposes.
If comparing a focal length less than 45, I would hope that the 16-45 is a little better than the 18-250. (I know that the 18-250 is better than the 16-45 at taking pictures at a focal length in excess of 45!) My biggest issues with the 18-250 is the speed (or lack of), which cannot compare to say a fast 50 1.4. (Again, apples to oranges...)

[audiobomber]

I'm thinking that this really is an apples to oranges comparison, as they really do have two different purposes.

The OP is asking how they compare in the range of 18-45.

[beaumont]

The OP is asking how they compare in the range of 18-45.

Point taken. In that case my only comment (which is worthless) is...I would hope so considering the cost of the 18-45 is more...

[audiobomber]

would hope so considering the cost of the 18-45 is more...

I assume you mean the 16-45mm is more expensive than the 18-250mm? Actually it's the reverse, the 16-45mm has had a price reduction and is available for $300 to $320 and the superzoom is $479 (Adorama prices).

[beaumont]

The OP is asking how they compare in the range of 18-45.

Yes, you are correct, I meant to say the 16-45. (It has been referred to as the 18-45 a couple of times in this thread.) Wasn't aware the price had dropped as it doesn't seem to be reflected in the list prices on the Pentax website. Since it has dropped, one would wonder why. It looks like it is not any faster than the 18-250?...

[Stratman]

It is a constant F4, throughout its range, the 18-250 is pretty slow at the long end, F6.3 I believe

[beaumont]

It is a constant F4, throughout its range, the 18-250 is pretty slow at the long end, F6.3 I believe

Agreed, but i'm quite sure the 18-250 goes from 3.5 at 18 to 4.5 at 45. Therefore it doesn't seem much faster?...

[audiobomber]

I meant to say the 16-45. (It has been referred to as the 18-45 a couple of times in this thread.)

Not really. The OP asked about the 18-45 mm range, which is the range that both operate in. In other words he was not asking for comparison of 16-17 mm or 46-250 mm, where only one operates.

Since it has dropped, one would wonder why.

AFAIK the 16-45mm is being phased out. Production has either stopped or will soon.

It looks like it is not any faster than the 18-250?...

My 18-250mm appears to be f/3.5 up to 22mm, f/4 from 23-34 and and f/4.5 from 35 to 45 mm. The 16-45 is constant f/4, so no significant difference within the common range. NOTE: the recommendation at Photozone is to not use the 18-24mm range of the 18-2500mm at maximum aperture because of severe vignetting and reduced resolution. The 16-45mm performance is decreased at the widest angles at f4, but still quite useable.

[Stratman]

Agreed, but i'm quite sure the 18-250 goes from 3.5 at 18 to 4.5 at 45. Therefore it doesn't seem much faster?...

ahhhh, ok, next time i should read the entire post, lol

[Canada_Rockies]

Hi everyone,

I have been trying the Pentax 18-250mm lens and am considering going for the 16-45mm lens instead, and then maybe add a zoom lens down the road.

Just wondering what the opinions are of the image quality, lens speed, focusing, etc of the 16-45mm lens compared to the 18-250mm lens in the range of 18-45?

Thanks

Peter

Late to the debate, but I (as you can see below) use zooms, but never use super zooms. The IQ on good quality zooms in the 1:3 zoom range (16-50, 50-135, 24-90 stretches it a bit, 70-210) and I prefer those wth a constant aperture. I have also found that zooms at extremely long focal lengths are less than stellar in their performance (not counting the FA* 250-600/5.6, of course).

My recommendation would be for the 16-45 with its excellent IQ and constant aperture. You could then add longer ones. I personally can vouch for the AD* 50-135, which has a fast constant aperture, and a very usable focal length range. The DA* lenses have excellent image quality, in general.

[krypticide]

IMy 18-250 creeps like crazy, so I have to keep it locked all the time.

I keep a fat rubber band halfway on the focus ring, and halfway on the zoom ring. It provides enough resistance to keep the lens from creeping. You just have to replace the lens every few months as UV light breaks down rubber bands over time.