Choosing a inexpensive Kit Zoom lens for my K-R

**UncleVanya** · 07-06-2018, 04:28 PM - **1 Like**

The only knock on the 16-45 is that I hear some copies suffer barrel wobble and sag over time. It would be helpful to read a bit of long term user reviews.

**zippythezip** · 07-06-2018, 04:31 PM - **1 Like**

I think my 18-55II which is a little harder to find now, is better than my other 18-55's and do like the 16-45 but its a bit longer and extends out to get wider which seems odd now.

E-man · 07-06-2018, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by normhead

There's no informationI I know of, including extensive data collected by lensrentals.com (who have looked at the issue) to suggest a plastic mount is in any way inferior to a metal mount. Their report indicated, the only advantage one way or the other was that plastic mounts are cheaper to repair if broken than metal mounts. There was no advantage for metal in terms of either durability or frequency of repair. Sometimes the engineers who design these things actually do know more than the rest of us.

Yeah, I've read that but they still feel cheap and flimsy to me. I realize it's a personal prejudice, but I just prefer the metal mounts.

kh1234567890 · 07-07-2018, 02:23 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

The only knock on the 16-45 is that I hear some copies suffer barrel wobble and sag over time. It would be helpful to read a bit of long term user reviews.

I still suspect that the barrel wobble is possibly due to the somewhat unusual design of the DA16-45. If you keep the quite wide (and largely useless) lens hood on and habitually plonk the camera down on a flat surface with the lens extended then there is a fair amount of lateral strain put on the barrel. I don't use the hood and have got into a habit of retracting the lens and I do not have a wobble problem with mine.

Another shortcoming of the DA16-45 is a noticeable amount of yellow/blue CA at the corners of the frame. Fortunately the clears up well in post (I shoot RAW and use PS) but it might be a problem if one was to shoot JPEG only and not use the in-camera corrections.

normhead · 07-07-2018, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

The only knock on the 16-45 is that I hear some copies suffer barrel wobble and sag over time. It would be helpful to read a bit of long term user reviews.

My knock on the 16-45 is I borrowed my friend Chris' once and wasn't impressed with the images. There wasn't anything in particular wrong with them. I Just didn't end up feeling it was my kind of lens. But then I think the 18-135 is too short and like walking around with my new 55-300, so maybe it's just not my focal length.

Ronald Oakes · 07-07-2018, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by E-man

Yeah, I've read that but they still feel cheap and flimsy to me. I realize it's a personal prejudice, but I just prefer the metal mounts.

Last night at another Auction there was a early digital model Canon Rebel T2i (if I remember correctly) with a 28-105 kit lens. The lens was the lightest piece of plastic crap I have ever seen !

It makes me feel quite good being a "Pentaxian" after I saw that and the Lenses we have to choose from.
Funny thing was 4 people ended up getting in a bidding war over it , and it sold for something like $165 !

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Inexpensive wireless trigger/receiver kit for K-1?	awscreo	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	18	08-24-2017 09:19 PM
Need simple, inexpensive zoom lens for K-5	Lucy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	40	06-13-2015 05:58 AM
Choosing a fast, wide, normal zoom makes my head hurt.	AquaDome	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-29-2014 10:00 AM
Inexpensive AF zoom lens	Asudef	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	02-26-2010 07:56 PM
Choosing successor to kit lens	Ash	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	01-05-2008 01:15 PM

07-06-2018, 04:28 PM - 1 Like	#31
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	The only knock on the 16-45 is that I hear some copies suffer barrel wobble and sag over time. It would be helpful to read a bit of long term user reviews.

07-06-2018, 04:31 PM - 1 Like	#32
zippythezip Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Springhill Nova Scotia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 397	I think my 18-55II which is a little harder to find now, is better than my other 18-55's and do like the 16-45 but its a bit longer and extends out to get wider which seems odd now.

07-06-2018, 08:01 PM	#33
E-man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 678	Originally posted by normhead There's no informationI I know of, including extensive data collected by lensrentals.com (who have looked at the issue) to suggest a plastic mount is in any way inferior to a metal mount. Their report indicated, the only advantage one way or the other was that plastic mounts are cheaper to repair if broken than metal mounts. There was no advantage for metal in terms of either durability or frequency of repair. Sometimes the engineers who design these things actually do know more than the rest of us. Yeah, I've read that but they still feel cheap and flimsy to me. I realize it's a personal prejudice, but I just prefer the metal mounts.

07-07-2018, 02:23 AM - 1 Like	#34
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by UncleVanya The only knock on the 16-45 is that I hear some copies suffer barrel wobble and sag over time. It would be helpful to read a bit of long term user reviews. I still suspect that the barrel wobble is possibly due to the somewhat unusual design of the DA16-45. If you keep the quite wide (and largely useless) lens hood on and habitually plonk the camera down on a flat surface with the lens extended then there is a fair amount of lateral strain put on the barrel. I don't use the hood and have got into a habit of retracting the lens and I do not have a wobble problem with mine. Another shortcoming of the DA16-45 is a noticeable amount of yellow/blue CA at the corners of the frame. Fortunately the clears up well in post (I shoot RAW and use PS) but it might be a problem if one was to shoot JPEG only and not use the in-camera corrections.

07-07-2018, 06:23 AM	#35
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by UncleVanya The only knock on the 16-45 is that I hear some copies suffer barrel wobble and sag over time. It would be helpful to read a bit of long term user reviews. My knock on the 16-45 is I borrowed my friend Chris' once and wasn't impressed with the images. There wasn't anything in particular wrong with them. I Just didn't end up feeling it was my kind of lens. But then I think the 18-135 is too short and like walking around with my new 55-300, so maybe it's just not my focal length.

07-07-2018, 09:01 AM	#36
Ronald Oakes Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2017 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,582 Original Poster	Originally posted by E-man Yeah, I've read that but they still feel cheap and flimsy to me. I realize it's a personal prejudice, but I just prefer the metal mounts. Last night at another Auction there was a early digital model Canon Rebel T2i (if I remember correctly) with a 28-105 kit lens. The lens was the lightest piece of plastic crap I have ever seen ! It makes me feel quite good being a "Pentaxian" after I saw that and the Lenses we have to choose from. Funny thing was 4 people ended up getting in a bidding war over it , and it sold for something like $165 !