Pentax 16-50mm or Pentax 24-70mm.

KjellAV · 06-13-2018, 03:06 AM

My 16-85mm lens broke after one year of use. The inner barrel broke. Normal use, no smashing around, a big mystery. So I don´t want a new one because of the build quality.

I´m looking for a new wr lens. The Pentax 16-50mm would be my first choice because of f1:2.8 and wr. But I´m concerned about build quality of the SDM and IQ. I actually bought three of these lenses, and all went back due to bad IQ.
The lens is going to be used on Pentax KP, so a good copy of 16-50mm would be perfect with my 50-135mm and 300mm.
Do someone have any suggestion how to get a good copy of this lens.

I´m looking at Pentax 24-70mm. This is bigger and heavier, designed for FF body and is a little to narrow in the short end. Looks like a great lens, but I have no plans on getting a FF body so this lens is a little to hefty for my purpose.
But I think it is better than a poor 16-50mm.

LensBeginner · 06-13-2018, 03:24 AM

Yeah the 16-50 has that fame of being a star-not-really-a-star lens.
I would go for the 16-85 in a heartbeat.

If you need 2.8, there are good alternatives by Sigma and Tamron (but they're not WR) - I'm talking about the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM (there's also a legacy version, should you go for the used market, the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM) and the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 SP AF XR LD Aspherical IF Di II.

I wouldn't buy a hefty and pricey FF lens to use it on APS-C, if I wasn't planning on going FF sooner or later.

Cez · 06-13-2018, 03:54 AM

I agree with LensBeginner, the Tamron is an excellent choice, if you're ready to give up on WR. The 24-70 would be too heavy, expensive and you'll miss the useful 17-24 range.

The 16-50 has the same SDM failure issues, like the 50-135. Just make sure to use it at least once every two months to keep the motor fit (you just have to press the AF button on your camera), and you should have no problem. The latest copies are supposed to be more reliable, but mine, bought in 2015, failed once (after 5 months in its case).

The IQ is very good but quite soft indeed in the edges at f2.8, it is stellar atf 5.6.

The Tamron, which I previously owned, was an excellent lens, from f/2.8 onwards, clearly better than the Pentax. And very cheap ! But noisy, and I really needed WR for my trips, so I sold it and bought the DA*.

KjellAV · 06-13-2018, 04:37 AM

I would really like to have wr. I often bring my camera on hikes, and living in the west part of Norway, mens often rain and wind.
I have more than good enough optics for shiny days below 50mm (sigma 18-35mm, pentax 15mm limited, 35mm macro limited, Pentax 12-24mm), but I need optics for rainy days below 50mm. Lenses without wr is not an option. So the 16-50 would be a perfect choice if the lens actually was a star lens.

I was very satisfied with my pentax 16-85mm, but I´m very skeptic to the build quality. When the inner barrel broke, I could not understand what could have caused the brake. I´m very careful with my photo gear, and I´m 100% sure that the lens never have been smashed, kicked, fallen down etc. So my conclusion is weakness inn the construction or materials.

I know the 24-70mm is heavy, but lighter than my sigma 18-35mm or a little heavier than pentax 50-135mm.

Kozlok · 06-13-2018, 04:42 AM

Try to get Pentax to repair it. Maybe send an email to Pentax in Japan?

Post some photos of it here.

**Mallee Boy** · 06-13-2018, 04:48 AM

Can I throw in a curve ball ? Do not overlook the Pentax DA 17-70 f4. Have had this lens since it was released, added a DA* 16-50 last year and not convinced I am getting any better results over the 17-70.

Cez · 06-13-2018, 06:54 AM

Pentax DA 17-70 is not WR and as Kjell mentioned, he really needs it.

Try also to get a repair for your lens. Explain the situation, perhaps they'll acknowledge a manufacturing defect, and you'll pay nothing or just a few bucks for your repair. I think it's worth it.

jgnfld · 06-13-2018, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by KjellAV

My 16-85mm lens broke after one year of use. The inner barrel broke. Normal use, no smashing around, a big mystery. So I don´t want a new one because of the build quality.

I´m looking for a new wr lens. The Pentax 16-50mm would be my first choice because of f1:2.8 and wr. But I´m concerned about build quality of the SDM and IQ. I actually bought three of these lenses, and all went back due to bad IQ.
The lens is going to be used on Pentax KP, so a good copy of 16-50mm would be perfect with my 50-135mm and 300mm.
Do someone have any suggestion how to get a good copy of this lens.

I´m looking at Pentax 24-70mm. This is bigger and heavier, designed for FF body and is a little to narrow in the short end. Looks like a great lens, but I have no plans on getting a FF body so this lens is a little to hefty for my purpose.
But I think it is better than a poor 16-50mm.

Odd...I keep my K-70 and 16-85 in the cockpit of my sailboat on a jacket, usually, and sometimes it gets bounced around a bit winds being what they are in Newfoundland and the North Atlantic. Never had a problem with build quality. And love the lens. As for your choice, do you need 16-23 or 51-70 more in your typical shooting?

timb64 · 06-13-2018, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by jgnfld

Odd...I keep my K-70 and 16-85 in the cockpit of my sailboat on a jacket, usually, and sometimes it gets bounced around a bit winds being what they are in Newfoundland and the North Atlantic. Never had a problem with build quality. And love the lens. As for your choice, do you need 16-23 or 51-70 more in your typical shooting?

Same here my 16-85 is a permenent fixture on frequent trips to Asia where the kit gets quite a hammering on trains etc and I swear all Cambodian minivan drivers would have no problems breaking into F1 or Indy 500 teams!

**Scorpio71GR** · 06-13-2018, 06:50 PM

I understand your frustration. I have had a few lenses fail for no reason. Sometimes they will just fail and it has nothing to do with they way they treated. The 16-85 is the workhorse on my K3. The 16-50 is the weakest od all the Star lenses. Nother really sharp at f2.8, better by f4 and peaks by f6.3-8, t lest my copy does. If you want a lens that is sharp wide open the 16-50 is not it. My copy is 5 years old and still the original SDM motor. For a WR lens the only other option is the 18-135. However this lens will not be sharp wide open either. Unfortunately for the 16-50 it is held against the 50-135 and 60-250 which are simply amazing lenses. Mine are both sharp wide open. Unfortunately for WR lenses are choices are extremely limited. I hope Richoh eventually releases an updated version of the 16-50 with a better SDM motor and improved optics.

tibbitts · 06-16-2018, 08:26 AM

I have a 17-50 Tamron and the 16-85. I would just get another 16-85 if you can find a good one - I went through four of them and still have minor QC issues, but kept the best of the bunch. My Tamron has been serviced twice and consistently needs a 10 adjustment for AF. It's good stopped down but you have to stop down to overcome the curved focus plane.

You could try the Sigmas; the 17-50 or the 17-70. I have no experience with them. I understand the point about WR and it's very nice to have, but we all went for decades without WR and it's still raining about as much as before. I think WR is more important for bodies than lenses. I've tested and there is just not a lot of intrusion around the mount so that leaves the other rings and we don't have aperture rings any more so you're down to fewer intrusion points than before.

repaap · 06-16-2018, 09:14 AM

Well, I have had mostly great experience with my 16-50, taken good trips, some rough times too, in snowing, storm...well front seal needs to be replaced. It wears down during yrs. Bought mine 2010. No problem, other than that front seal. My favourite lens untill K-1.

woodworm · 06-16-2018, 09:23 AM

I like my Pentax 16-85 (though I'm on my second one) though I'm not sure I like it as much as my old Sigma 17-70 (mark 1) - better range, WR and faster AF, but IQ isn't as good as the Sigma.

gm4life · 06-16-2018, 11:30 AM - **1 Like**

Give another 16-85 or a 18-135 a try. I think you may have had bad luck. The 16-50 would already ready be in my bag if it wasn’t such a “bad apple”. I too have considered the 24-70 but I am not trying to tempt myself to a K1. The real problem is the 16-24mm coverage, I can easily work with my 20-40 Limited but the difference between 20 and 24 on a crop is significant.

That reminds me have you considered the 20-40 Limited it is 2.8 at 20mm and is WR. Plus has the limited pixie dust.

tibbitts · 06-16-2018, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by woodworm

I like my Pentax 16-85 (though I'm on my second one) though I'm not sure I like it as much as my old Sigma 17-70 (mark 1) - better range, WR and faster AF, but IQ isn't as good as the Sigma.

I'm surprised you found that about the image qualify, since neither the 17-50 nor 17-70 Sigmas seem to have enthusiastic comments about IQ in the corners at the wide end, even when stopped down considerably. On the other hand the Pentax 17-50 doesn't seem to generate much enthusiasm about its image quality anywhere else either.

06-13-2018, 03:06 AM	#1
KjellAV Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 53	Pentax 16-50mm or Pentax 24-70mm. My 16-85mm lens broke after one year of use. The inner barrel broke. Normal use, no smashing around, a big mystery. So I don´t want a new one because of the build quality. I´m looking for a new wr lens. The Pentax 16-50mm would be my first choice because of f1:2.8 and wr. But I´m concerned about build quality of the SDM and IQ. I actually bought three of these lenses, and all went back due to bad IQ. The lens is going to be used on Pentax KP, so a good copy of 16-50mm would be perfect with my 50-135mm and 300mm. Do someone have any suggestion how to get a good copy of this lens. I´m looking at Pentax 24-70mm. This is bigger and heavier, designed for FF body and is a little to narrow in the short end. Looks like a great lens, but I have no plans on getting a FF body so this lens is a little to hefty for my purpose. But I think it is better than a poor 16-50mm.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax DFA 24-70mm or Sigma 24-70mm f2.8?	David L	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	03-31-2016 12:36 AM
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM - VS - Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro	Braciola	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-15-2010 04:54 AM
Traveling 17-70mm vs 24-70mm vs 24-75mm	Madhatter_	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	07-28-2010 04:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: F 24-50mm 4, A 24-50mm 4, M 35mm 2, M 50mm 1.4, A 35-105mm 3.5, A 70-210mm 4	raybird	Sold Items	7	08-29-2008 01:06 PM

06-13-2018, 03:24 AM	#2
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Yeah the 16-50 has that fame of being a star-not-really-a-star lens. I would go for the 16-85 in a heartbeat. If you need 2.8, there are good alternatives by Sigma and Tamron (but they're not WR) - I'm talking about the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM (there's also a legacy version, should you go for the used market, the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM) and the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 SP AF XR LD Aspherical IF Di II. I wouldn't buy a hefty and pricey FF lens to use it on APS-C, if I wasn't planning on going FF sooner or later.

06-13-2018, 03:54 AM	#3
Cez New Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 11	I agree with LensBeginner, the Tamron is an excellent choice, if you're ready to give up on WR. The 24-70 would be too heavy, expensive and you'll miss the useful 17-24 range. The 16-50 has the same SDM failure issues, like the 50-135. Just make sure to use it at least once every two months to keep the motor fit (you just have to press the AF button on your camera), and you should have no problem. The latest copies are supposed to be more reliable, but mine, bought in 2015, failed once (after 5 months in its case). The IQ is very good but quite soft indeed in the edges at f2.8, it is stellar atf 5.6. The Tamron, which I previously owned, was an excellent lens, from f/2.8 onwards, clearly better than the Pentax. And very cheap ! But noisy, and I really needed WR for my trips, so I sold it and bought the DA*.

06-13-2018, 04:37 AM	#4
KjellAV Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 53 Original Poster	I would really like to have wr. I often bring my camera on hikes, and living in the west part of Norway, mens often rain and wind. I have more than good enough optics for shiny days below 50mm (sigma 18-35mm, pentax 15mm limited, 35mm macro limited, Pentax 12-24mm), but I need optics for rainy days below 50mm. Lenses without wr is not an option. So the 16-50 would be a perfect choice if the lens actually was a star lens. I was very satisfied with my pentax 16-85mm, but I´m very skeptic to the build quality. When the inner barrel broke, I could not understand what could have caused the brake. I´m very careful with my photo gear, and I´m 100% sure that the lens never have been smashed, kicked, fallen down etc. So my conclusion is weakness inn the construction or materials. I know the 24-70mm is heavy, but lighter than my sigma 18-35mm or a little heavier than pentax 50-135mm.

06-13-2018, 04:42 AM	#5
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Try to get Pentax to repair it. Maybe send an email to Pentax in Japan? Post some photos of it here.

06-13-2018, 04:48 AM	#6
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Can I throw in a curve ball ? Do not overlook the Pentax DA 17-70 f4. Have had this lens since it was released, added a DA* 16-50 last year and not convinced I am getting any better results over the 17-70.

06-13-2018, 06:54 AM	#7
Cez New Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 11	Pentax DA 17-70 is not WR and as Kjell mentioned, he really needs it. Try also to get a repair for your lens. Explain the situation, perhaps they'll acknowledge a manufacturing defect, and you'll pay nothing or just a few bucks for your repair. I think it's worth it.

06-13-2018, 08:59 AM	#8
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,787	Originally posted by KjellAV My 16-85mm lens broke after one year of use. The inner barrel broke. Normal use, no smashing around, a big mystery. So I don´t want a new one because of the build quality. I´m looking for a new wr lens. The Pentax 16-50mm would be my first choice because of f1:2.8 and wr. But I´m concerned about build quality of the SDM and IQ. I actually bought three of these lenses, and all went back due to bad IQ. The lens is going to be used on Pentax KP, so a good copy of 16-50mm would be perfect with my 50-135mm and 300mm. Do someone have any suggestion how to get a good copy of this lens. I´m looking at Pentax 24-70mm. This is bigger and heavier, designed for FF body and is a little to narrow in the short end. Looks like a great lens, but I have no plans on getting a FF body so this lens is a little to hefty for my purpose. But I think it is better than a poor 16-50mm. Odd...I keep my K-70 and 16-85 in the cockpit of my sailboat on a jacket, usually, and sometimes it gets bounced around a bit winds being what they are in Newfoundland and the North Atlantic. Never had a problem with build quality. And love the lens. As for your choice, do you need 16-23 or 51-70 more in your typical shooting?

06-13-2018, 09:07 AM	#9
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by jgnfld Odd...I keep my K-70 and 16-85 in the cockpit of my sailboat on a jacket, usually, and sometimes it gets bounced around a bit winds being what they are in Newfoundland and the North Atlantic. Never had a problem with build quality. And love the lens. As for your choice, do you need 16-23 or 51-70 more in your typical shooting? Same here my 16-85 is a permenent fixture on frequent trips to Asia where the kit gets quite a hammering on trains etc and I swear all Cambodian minivan drivers would have no problems breaking into F1 or Indy 500 teams!

06-13-2018, 06:50 PM	#10
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,003	I understand your frustration. I have had a few lenses fail for no reason. Sometimes they will just fail and it has nothing to do with they way they treated. The 16-85 is the workhorse on my K3. The 16-50 is the weakest od all the Star lenses. Nother really sharp at f2.8, better by f4 and peaks by f6.3-8, t lest my copy does. If you want a lens that is sharp wide open the 16-50 is not it. My copy is 5 years old and still the original SDM motor. For a WR lens the only other option is the 18-135. However this lens will not be sharp wide open either. Unfortunately for the 16-50 it is held against the 50-135 and 60-250 which are simply amazing lenses. Mine are both sharp wide open. Unfortunately for WR lenses are choices are extremely limited. I hope Richoh eventually releases an updated version of the 16-50 with a better SDM motor and improved optics.

06-16-2018, 08:26 AM	#11
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	I have a 17-50 Tamron and the 16-85. I would just get another 16-85 if you can find a good one - I went through four of them and still have minor QC issues, but kept the best of the bunch. My Tamron has been serviced twice and consistently needs a 10 adjustment for AF. It's good stopped down but you have to stop down to overcome the curved focus plane. You could try the Sigmas; the 17-50 or the 17-70. I have no experience with them. I understand the point about WR and it's very nice to have, but we all went for decades without WR and it's still raining about as much as before. I think WR is more important for bodies than lenses. I've tested and there is just not a lot of intrusion around the mount so that leaves the other rings and we don't have aperture rings any more so you're down to fewer intrusion points than before.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-16-2018, 09:14 AM	#12
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	Well, I have had mostly great experience with my 16-50, taken good trips, some rough times too, in snowing, storm...well front seal needs to be replaced. It wears down during yrs. Bought mine 2010. No problem, other than that front seal. My favourite lens untill K-1.

06-16-2018, 09:23 AM	#13
woodworm Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: North Wales Posts: 266	I like my Pentax 16-85 (though I'm on my second one) though I'm not sure I like it as much as my old Sigma 17-70 (mark 1) - better range, WR and faster AF, but IQ isn't as good as the Sigma.

06-16-2018, 11:30 AM - 1 Like	#14
gm4life Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 602	Give another 16-85 or a 18-135 a try. I think you may have had bad luck. The 16-50 would already ready be in my bag if it wasn’t such a “bad apple”. I too have considered the 24-70 but I am not trying to tempt myself to a K1. The real problem is the 16-24mm coverage, I can easily work with my 20-40 Limited but the difference between 20 and 24 on a crop is significant. That reminds me have you considered the 20-40 Limited it is 2.8 at 20mm and is WR. Plus has the limited pixie dust.

06-16-2018, 11:59 AM	#15
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by woodworm I like my Pentax 16-85 (though I'm on my second one) though I'm not sure I like it as much as my old Sigma 17-70 (mark 1) - better range, WR and faster AF, but IQ isn't as good as the Sigma. I'm surprised you found that about the image qualify, since neither the 17-50 nor 17-70 Sigmas seem to have enthusiastic comments about IQ in the corners at the wide end, even when stopped down considerably. On the other hand the Pentax 17-50 doesn't seem to generate much enthusiasm about its image quality anywhere else either.