[StephenHampshire]

That was my observation as well. That being said, I would expect the DA 16-45/4 to perform somewhat better.


Steve

Mine does...although I use the 16-85 on my K3 now, when I use it. Mostly I shoot with the K1 and 28-105, which is a cracking (and not expensive) lens

[dafbp]

Cheap is relative. But I get your point.
I think the age of good and cheap is gone, with the current move towards fast lenses, like the DA* 11-18 f2.8.
Unless they revive the Ltd series (not cheap, but nothing like my example, and good value), or just realise that some (lots of) people don't need f1.4, you (and me) are s..t out of luck.
I'd like something better than my Sigma 10-20, but not at 3x the price, partly because of an aperture I don't need. If Pentax made a slower 11-18, which would(?) put it at 2x the Sigma$, I'd get it.
Don't know if it's in your FL range, but I like the 16-85 a lot.

[normhead]

Exactly. For the same aperture, m43 will have more depth of field which will give the impression of an overall sharper picture, for better or worse. The correct point of comparison would be to use the 16-45 at f8. Unless defective, it should be very good at this aperture. At f4, some parts could be out of the DoF sharpness zone, which is to be expected if not wanted.

Or as I've often pointed out, the larger the format, the more expensive the gear, the harder it is to use. If you are happy with cheaper gear, there are many ways to achieve that. If you aren't maximizing the use of your larger format gear, then something like m4/3 might be right up your alley. The only reason for using a DSLR in my mind is those images you can't take with a smaller set up. If you can shoot ƒ8 you can get 4/3 cameras that you can print up to 30x40 with. Almost no one needs better. What APS-c and FF do well is narrow depth of field, and less noise with low light. My 1:1.2 sensor camera can really only be used to ƒ4 without diffraction, and I prefer only 100 or 200 ISO. The range of useful f-stops is limited by diffraction. If you want to do this, you need a 300mm lens at ƒ2.8 on DSLRs will handle at minimum ISO 100-1600, 6400 for my K-1.

If you want this you want a larger format camera.
K-1 and Tamron 300 2.8 @ ƒ2.8. 1/800s, 100 ISO


If this is good enough then a smaller format will do.
K-3 DA 55-300 @300mm ISO 100, ƒ10, 1/800s


The larger format gives you a choice. You can do either, with 4/3 you're likely only going to get the second one. But if you're saying "at ƒ8 they are pretty much the same", that's true. And if you only want the ƒ8 images, why even buy APS-c or FF?

So the current strategy is to build lenses that anyone can do what they want with regardless of their style of shooting. For those who want less, there's legacy glass. But it's not surprising that Pentax went with "do everything" lenses first. I'm sure they'll get around to more specialized lenses later, like the coming 70-200 ƒ4.

There's not a lot of legacy glass that isn't pretty good at ƒ8.

[stevebrot]

The reason for that is clear. Look at the measured chromatic aberrations.

Compare to the DA* 16-50/2.8 on the same camera...



...and the DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 on the K10D...




It would appear that Pentax did something quite right with the dirt-cheap 18-55 (v1) kit and that design goals for the more expensive lenses led away from CA control, perhaps in the direction of larger maximum aperture and increased resolution/contrast across the frame. Or perhaps not; the DA 16-50/2.8 pretty much tanked overall in Klaus' tests on the K10D. That being said, he gave it a thumbs up for optical performance in his summary. Go figure...bad copy?


Steve

(...big fan of the DA 18-55 variants...)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-11-2019 at 08:13 AM.

[normhead]

Compare to the DA* 16-50/2.8 on the same camera...



...and the DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 on the K10D...




It would appear that Pentax did something quite right with the dirt-cheap 18-55 kit and that design goals for the more expensive lenses led away from CA control, perhaps in the direction of larger maximum aperture and increased resolution/contrast across the frame. Or perhaps not; the DA 16-50/2.8 pretty much tanked overall in Klaus' tests on the K10D.


Steve

(...big fan of the DA 18-55 variants...)

Pretty much why I never bought a DA* 16-50.

Tamron 17-50


Look at the FA 20 prime.... better on the border up to ƒ5.6 than the 16-50 is anywhere.


It would seem to be harder to make wide angle zooms (and primes but worse for zooms) acceptable for CA.

Look at the DA 16-85 numbers for CA and you understand right away what you're paying for.


What Pentax hasn't done is put out a"kit lens" with terrible numbers to make the initial purchase cheap, so they can stick it to you later. The 18-55, 16-85 and 28-105 are all decent lenses with the 16-85 and 28-105 falling closer to exemplary than to decent, and the 18-55 being exemplary for a cheap lens. MY FA 35-80ncost me $70. How many cheap lenses does guy need?

My original 18-55 was so good, I bought my 18-135 for it's zoom range, IQ wasn't really an issue.

[stevebrot]

I am noting a few possible misconceptions regarding the DA 16-45/4 and the original post. For clarification:

• It was never a "cheap" lens in the same sense as any of the DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 variants or the DA 18-50/4.0-5.6. IIRC, the price new was at or about $500, which was competitive for a fixed-aperture zoom at the time, but hardly "cheap".
• The example photos from the Lumix lens are hardly sterling and typical for a cheap kit zoom (low contrast and soft at the edges). I would have no fears of putting my DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 (v1) head to head against it at 16Mpx.
• Without actual comparison photos to gauge by, we have no idea how well the OP's DA 16-45/4 might have fared against the Lumix kit lens

Steve

[johnkrumm]

That particular lens is indeed sharp. I have it. It's well known. The purple fringing is also common for Panasonic lenses on Olympus cameras because Olympus doesn't filter the purple out (you can find long threads about the buying the right filter to "fix" Panasonic lenses when used with Olympus cameras).

[ZombieArmy]

I think if you're shooting stopped down and wide the updated 18-55s are really stellar. Sharp when stopped down, WR, fast focusing, quick shift, great contrast out of the gate and next to no CA.

What's not to like?

[asahi]

Define "good"
Define "cheap"

The DFA28-105 is sensational value for money. One of the best kit lenses from any manufacturer.
On crop, I consider the DA10-17, DA18-135 and all the DA55-300 variants to be excellent.

I definitely concur on those last three!

[robert]

Here are samples I just took out of my back yard. The Lumix is set to 5.6 the Pentax is set to 8.0. Full photo, center crop and both edge crops. Both shot raw with lightoom sharpening set at 25 for both.

[BigMackCam]

Which Lumix lens are you using on your Olympus?

What were you focusing on in each case?

It's worth considering that the Pentax DA16-45 was released in 2003, so it's a 16-year-old design. Plus, we don't know if your copy is a good example (all lenses have copy variation). It seems a little premature to assume Pentax can't produce a good but inexpensive standard zoom on the basis of this one comparison...

EDIT: I wonder if the question you're really asking is, "is my DA16-45 performing as expected, and - if it is - what other Pentax lens would do better, without breaking the bank?"

Incidentally, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM - not an OEM Pentax lens, I realise - can be picked up relatively inexpensively when discounted, and certainly used, and it's a phenomenal lens if edge-to-edge sharpness is what you're looking for. Plus, of course, it has a constant f/2.8 aperture, giving depth-of-field control I'm certain the Lumix lens on your Olympus body can't offer.

[stevebrot]

@robert, you have serious problems with your DA 16-45/4.

These results are not typical for examples I have seen from that lens and make me wonder if a cemented group has separated or if there might be internal damage resulting in one or more elements being displaced. Vaseline? Fungus?

EDIT: I wonder if the question you're really asking is, "is my DA16-45 performing as expected..."

I would suggest without question, that their lens is not performing as expected!


Steve

(...strangely the EXIF says focus range is "close" while the apparent distance is not. Something is not right...)

[tvdtvdtvd]

I posted this in the last thread but it seems to have been ignored:

Just throwing it out there; sample variation, perhaps? I don't own either lens in question so can't make any comments
about their performance, but certainly there is enough evidence to suggest, good, average and bad copies of almost
any lens are in circulation.

[BigMackCam]

I would suggest without question, that their lens is not performing as expected!

Yes, that's what I assumed. I don't own the DA16-45, but even my original "Mk I" 18-55 is better by f/8 in the borders than the OP shows here And, so far as I can see from reviews, the 16-45 is supposed to be quite decent...

[robert]

Which Lumix lens are you using on your Olympus?

What were you focusing on in each case?

It's worth considering that the Pentax DA16-45 was released in 2003, so it's a 16-year-old design. Plus, we don't know if your copy is a good example (all lenses have copy variation). It seems a little premature to assume Pentax can't produce a good but inexpensive standard zoom on the basis of this one comparison...

EDIT: I wonder if the question you're really asking is, "is my DA16-45 performing as expected, and - if it is - what other Pentax lens would do better, without breaking the bank?"

Incidentally, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM - not an OEM Pentax lens, I realise - can be picked up relatively inexpensively when discounted, and certainly used, and it's a phenomenal lens if edge-to-edge sharpness is what you're looking for. Plus, of course, it has a constant f/2.8 aperture, giving depth-of-field control I'm certain the Lumix lens on your Olympus body can't offer.

The Lumix lens is their 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 which I bought for $100 used in like new condition.