[clickclick]

If I could find a good copy of the DA 16-45 I would get another but buying used how do you know if your getting a good copy?

A good private seller should be willing to send sample shots. Now, getting the shots you need to really evaluate it can be hit or miss. If you buy used from someplace like B&H, KEH, Adorama, etc., I believe you could return a bad used copy (but confirm before buying - don't take my word). And given what you've said about past shooting and other lenses you own, the DA 15 Limited might make a lot of sense. It's known for being a popular landscape lens, and it's a great size for traveling.

[SSGGeezer]

A good private seller should be willing to send sample shots. Now, getting the shots you need to really evaluate it can be hit or miss. If you buy used from someplace like B&H, KEH, Adorama, etc., I believe you could return a bad used copy (but confirm before buying - don't take my word). And given what you've said about past shooting and other lenses you own, the DA 15 Limited might make a lot of sense. It's known for being a popular landscape lens, and it's a great size for traveling.

KEH is good about returns if the lens does not perform well. Email for an RMA and off it goes.
Never had to return anything from B and H but they do a good job in the descriptions, as does Used Photo Pro, (Roberts Camera in Indianapolis.)

[reh321]

Camera wise I took just one smaller bag...with my K5 ...the 55-300 and my 18-135. No flash, used the K5 internal flash, if needed, but did lot of available light for inside shots. Worked very well. Had focal lengths all the way from 18mm to 300 and the image quality from both these lenses, I find to be very satisfactory.

When I switched from Canon to Pentax four years ago, the Sigma 10-20mm is the one lens I really hated to retire - so I was happy to find a used K-mount one at the Market Place here. Honestly, I don't use it that much, but I'm always glad to reach into my bag for it when I do need it. The DA 18-135mm DC and the DA 55-300mm PLM are the other two regular occupants of my bag, and I am completely pleased with how they function on my KP, quietly, quickly and correctly.

[normhead]

My DA16-45 is good enough for me

SMC Pentax DA 16-45mm f4 ED AL Set | Flickr

It's good enough for a lot of people I'm sure... however not all would agree. It wouldn't do for many of my images.

[Just1MoreDave]

The 16-45 can have or develop a loose barrel, to the point of drooping. That can affect sharpness at wide angles, because the barrel is fully extended at 16mm. I remember reading complaints, checking mine and it was fine. So one quick check, see if your lens barrel is wobbly. You might see if you get better sharpness when you push it up. Not that that's practical in daily use, it just identifies the problem.

[kh1234567890]

It's good enough for a lot of people I'm sure... however not all would agree. It wouldn't do for many of my images.

Just out of interest, beside maybe the 16-45 mm focal length range being unsuitable or the lack of WR - why wouldn't it do for many of your images ? Which other 'cheap' zoom would you use ?

[Rondec]

I believe my 16-45 has gotten worse over time. It's always had a slight decentering problem with the right side of of image being soft but used to be much better than now. The Da 12-24 and 16-85 are out of my price range. So right now I'm looking at the Sigma 10-20 which is on sale for $399 new or the Da15mm limited which is on sale for $446. The Da 15 would go well with my 21 limited, F28 2.8 and F50 1.7.. When I was at Yellowstone 7 years ago I noticed that the majority of my landscapes were taken at 16mm or 21mm with a fer in the mid 20s mm. I will be going to Glacier National Park this Sept. If I could find a good copy of the DA 16-45 I would get another but buying used how do you know if your getting a good copy?

The 16-45 has a barrel that sticks out quite a bit during zooming action and could easily be knocked around a little. Why not look at a used 18-135? It has a nice zoom range, is a newer lens and is sealed to boot. The other day when I was looking, there was a copy on Amazon for 135. I don't know that 2 mm on the wide end would make that much of a difference and you would have a lot more on the long end. The biggest problem with the 16-45 is any copies you find are going to be pretty old and well used and even if they were stellar coming out of the factory, many probably won't be in that good shape now. Although as you say, they will be cheap.

Just my thoughts...

[tibbitts]

The 16-45 has a barrel that sticks out quite a bit during zooming action and could easily be knocked around a little. Why not look at a used 18-135? It has a nice zoom range, is a newer lens and is sealed to boot. The other day when I was looking, there was a copy on Amazon for 135. I don't know that 2 mm on the wide end would make that much of a difference and you would have a lot more on the long end. The biggest problem with the 16-45 is any copies you find are going to be pretty old and well used and even if they were stellar coming out of the factory, many probably won't be in that good shape now. Although as you say, they will be cheap.

Just my thoughts...

That two mm matters a lot - it's why, back in the film days, many of us who had 28mm lenses also bought and carried a 24mm to slot in between our 17mm and 28mm. Yes, if we could have come a little closer to halfway (in angle of view) between 28 and 17 we probably would have, but that's another story.

[normhead]

Just out of interest, beside maybe the 16-45 mm focal length range being unsuitable or the lack of WR - why wouldn't it do for many of your images ? Which other 'cheap' zoom would you use ?

Purple fringing that covers whole leaves in some of the land scapes.
I was fine with my 18-55, I regularly use an 18-135 which replaced my 18-55s. I find the 55-300 PLM to be an excellent lens until I put a TC on it. My DA 35 2.4 is clinically sharp but I don't prefer it's rendering, my FA 35-80 is as far as I'm concerned the best cheap lens ever. The DA 50 1.8 is cheap and produces good images.

With an 18-55 and a 55-30 as far as I'm concerned you're all set until you choose to get fancy. you can go from there to DA*s if you wish and just skip all those lenses in the middle.

My feeling is the goal of a company shouldn't be to make a lot of cheap glass. You don't really need a lot of cheap. Once you get better glass it just sits on the shelf. I practically gave my 18-55s away, not because I thought they were bad lenses, but because I hadn't used them in two years. Look at it this way.If someday you get a 16-85, what could possible inspire you to use a 16-45 again? Once you get an 18-135, why would you ever again put an 18-55 on your camera?

You don't have to buy every lens in the line up on the way to the top. It's better to skip a few. The 16-45 was one I chose to skip. Other people chose differently. You pays your money and you takes your pick.

[Rondec]

That two mm matters a lot - it's why, back in the film days, many of us who had 28mm lenses also bought and carried a 24mm to slot in between our 17mm and 28mm. Yes, if we could have come a little closer to halfway (in angle of view) between 28 and 17 we probably would have, but that's another story.

Sure. It is why I own the 24-70 for my K-1 and not the 28-105. But if you want "cheap," sometimes you have to give up a couple of mm on the wide end.

[stevebrot]

But if you want "cheap," sometimes you have to give up a couple of mm on the wide end.

Or quit shooting zooms for those focal lengths. Primes are so much easier to work with as FOV increases.


Steve

[VILLAINofOZ]

Now that I think about it, the DAL18-55 is the best zoom lens ever because it made me want better lol

[RICHARD L.]

Personally, my DA 16-45 mm f/4 lens has always given me satisfying images, even on a K3 body. I shoot mostly landscapes and I close my aperture to between f/8 and f/11 all the time.

[normhead]

Now that I think about it, the DAL18-55 is the best zoom lens ever because it made me want better lol

The 18-55 was probably optimized for 6-10MP cameras. It's still pretty good, I have couple of bad lenses to compare it to. It's better than my FA-J 18-35, FA 28-200 or Vivitar M 135 2.8. But you'll notice, as the sensors have improved, what it takes to make a lens "acceptable" has changed quite a bit. I didn't really start to question the 18-55 until we got my K20D.

---------- Post added 04-21-19 at 08:38 AM ----------

Personally, my DA 16-45 mm f/4 lens has always given me satisfying images, even on a K3 body. I shoot mostly landscapes and I close my aperture to between f/8 an f/11 all the time.

I'm sure it's better than the FA-J 18-35 I use on my K-1, and I get nice images from that lens when I use it. For all the obsessing you see about lenses, you wonder how we used to survive in the old days before computer design and pixel peeping. Most people didn't even own a loupe. Most landscape are not improved by ultra resolution in any case, it makes them look messy. In my 35mm find that prime poll, it's amazing how many people prefer one lens for it's rendering and another pixel peeping. The idea that you need the ultimate lens for the ultimate rendering in a landscape has never been established. Pixel peeping has almost certainly meant that people are using clinical lenses that they wouldn't pick in blind test of prints because they think sharper looking good at the pixel level translates directly to "I like how the lens renders." It doesn't. I've never seen an image taken with a ZIess lens I didn't find clinical, busy looking and un-appealing.

Meanwhile an FA 35-80 image.


I've bought lenses for more range, I found 35-80 limiting for a walk around, especially on APS-c. But for how it renders it has a lot to offer.

There are a whole slew of FA and F lenses that are both cheap second hand and render very well. It's an odd question for Pentax shooters.I can go out and shoot on my K-1 and cover 18-210 with lenses that cost me $225 in total. (FA-J 18-35 $100, FA 35-80, $80- F 70-210, $35). What I find with those lenses is you are more likely to get uncorrectable CA and purple fringing, but that isn't evident in every image. More modern designs give more consistent results, but that doesn't mean you can't get great results with older glass. When the older glass nails it, it doesn't take a backseat to anything.

[KoolKool]

18-135 is the good cheap zoom pentax ever made in my opinion

somehow i have my emotion nailed on such type of versatility superzoom len

now i wish for the DA HD 18-200, then my happiness will be rised over 9000