Decisions, decisions, decisions

**turbo_bird** · 01-02-2021, 07:41 PM

I've had a Pentax DSLR for quite a while, and have been using lots of my old manual focus lenses along with my trusty 16-45 f4 on my old K10D and K20D, but recently upgraded to a K3. With the increased resolution potential of the newer camera and no anti alias filter it would be nice to potentially upgrade my lens selection to match. I mostly shoot nature/landscape pictures, and am pretty used to using manual focus lenses. Live view with focus peaking is great! I guess my question is, would something like the DA 17-70 f4, DA 16-85 f3.5-5.6, or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC macro be a meaningful upgrade over my old 16-45, image quality wise? I'm usually stopped down to around f8 or so when doing landscapes, but the better autofocus and longer zoom range would be nice sometimes for just everyday walk around type stuff, especially if the image quality is better than my old 16-45. I also sometimes like to have the sun in the shot and stop down further for a nice sun star, if that makes a difference with these lenses. I'm also thinking of picking up a Samyang 16 f2 for night photos, and haven't really ever felt the need to go wider than 16mm for any of my pictures before. Ive been pouring over the reviews section for a while now, but there's so many good choices that it's getting hard to decide. I seem to be using my SMC 24 f3.5, SMC 28 f2.8, and SMC A 50 f2 lenses more all the time, but old film lenses aren't exactly ideal on a high resolution APSC body either. First world problems I guess. To complicate things even more, part of me wants to just get the DA 20-40 Limited, and the Samyang to handle the wide end. I'm also not opposed to buying used, which puts them all except the 20-40 at roughly $400 right now. That doesn't make the choose any easier. Thanks in advance for any help.
Kristian

Last edited by turbo_bird; 01-02-2021 at 07:49 PM.

bschriver11 · 01-02-2021, 08:10 PM

I would suggest the DA 35 F/2.4. It is light and compact and performs well above the cheap price, I have one and I love it!!

**jumbleview** · 01-02-2021, 09:06 PM

What's wrong with 16-45 on K3? I have it and like it very much on K-01 and K5ii. It is almost as sharp as Sigma 17-50 HSM and colors I like better. Alas, I do not have 24Mpixel camera to compare.

.

**ramseybuckeye** · 01-02-2021, 09:42 PM

I can only comment on one lens in your group, which is the DA 20-40 Ltd, easily my favorite wide lens that I have now or have had, it's well built, compact, silent focusing, weather resistant and just delivers great IQ. I have read a lot of good things about the 16-85. I've not read much about the 16-45 so I can't compare anything, but if you like it and don't need WR why not keep it. I also shoot mostly nature and landscapes, you don't mention longer length but the DA 55-300 PLM is great lens in that price range, compact, WR, and the fastest autofocus of any Pentax lens.

**turbo_bird** · 01-02-2021, 09:54 PM - **2 Likes**

I suppose my 16-45 could be damaged internally, it's been through a fair bit including a motorcycle crash or two while in a Lowepro backpack. It seems quite soft around the edges on the newer body, even stopped down to f8. These samples were taken at 19mm, f8, with a good tripod and 2 second timer to avoid camera shake. I even seem to have more detail in the reflection of the top of the mountain than the non-reflected mountaintop.
The full picture.

Center of the frame.

Mountains at top left.

Trees at right edge.

Top of central mountain.

And the reflection of the mountaintop, which is also at the edge of the frame, but much sharper than the top of the frame.

Other shots taken with this lens and body at various f stops are similar, which is sort of why I've been using my old primes more lately. Unfortunately I don't have an option wider than 24mm with them. Looking back at previous pictures (mostly with my K10D) I don't notice this, and I don't think any of them show a focal length between 16 and 19mm, so the 20-40 would be fine along with a 16mm prime. The more I look at this, the more I think that there might be more to this than just the lens not being as good as I used to think. For longer stuff I've got an old SMC A 70-210 f4 that does pretty good, and a SMC A 400 f5.6. Manual focus is a bit tougher than my K10D with the Katz eye focus screen I added though, might have to see about a different focus screen for the K3 too.
Kristian

**richard0170** · 01-03-2021, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by turbo_bird

I've had a Pentax DSLR for quite a while, and have been using lots of my old manual focus lenses along with my trusty 16-45 f4 on my old K10D and K20D, but recently upgraded to a K3. With the increased resolution potential of the newer camera and no anti alias filter it would be nice to potentially upgrade my lens selection to match. I mostly shoot nature/landscape pictures, and am pretty used to using manual focus lenses. Live view with focus peaking is great! I guess my question is, would something like the DA 17-70 f4, DA 16-85 f3.5-5.6, or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC macro be a meaningful upgrade over my old 16-45, image quality wise? I'm usually stopped down to around f8 or so when doing landscapes, but the better autofocus and longer zoom range would be nice sometimes for just everyday walk around type stuff, especially if the image quality is better than my old 16-45. I also sometimes like to have the sun in the shot and stop down further for a nice sun star, if that makes a difference with these lenses. I'm also thinking of picking up a Samyang 16 f2 for night photos, and haven't really ever felt the need to go wider than 16mm for any of my pictures before. Ive been pouring over the reviews section for a while now, but there's so many good choices that it's getting hard to decide. I seem to be using my SMC 24 f3.5, SMC 28 f2.8, and SMC A 50 f2 lenses more all the time, but old film lenses aren't exactly ideal on a high resolution APSC body either. First world problems I guess. To complicate things even more, part of me wants to just get the DA 20-40 Limited, and the Samyang to handle the wide end. I'm also not opposed to buying used, which puts them all except the 20-40 at roughly $400 right now. That doesn't make the choose any easier. Thanks in advance for any help.
Kristian

There are any number of suitable primes available. For budget go for the DA 35mm f2.4 or 50mm f1.8, both good sharp lenses. Any of the HD primes are good too but at an increased cost obviously. As a K3 (and KP) user myself, I can testify to the quality of several legacy MF lenses. My personal favourites in FL order are:-
K 28mm f3.5, K30m F2.8, A 35mm f2.0, Auto Revuenon 50mm f1.4, A 50mm f2.8 Macro, K 50mm f4 Macro, M 100mm f4 Macro and K 135mm f2.5. Some of these like the K 30 f2.8 and A 35 f2.0 can be hard to get hold of (and relatively expensive). Others like the M 100 f4 and K 28mm f3.5 less so.
One thing to bear in mind with these old F lenses, is how you are going to focus them. Modern viewfinder screens are optimized for slower lenses, and fast glass is not easy to focus through the viewfinder, but is easy via focus peaking on the rear screen. I have put a Focusingscreens.com prism screen in my K3 for use with fast glass and use the slower glass with my KP.
You seem to suggest an interest in a wider lens, in which case the Ltd. 15mm f4 is a very good choice.

**jatrax** · 01-03-2021, 09:59 AM

The 16-45 has a good reputation, though it is possible yours needs either AF fine tuning or has some internal damage.
Of the lenses in your list I only have the 16-85 and it basically lives on my K-3II. You have primes for when you want them so a good modern zoom to replace your 16-45 would seem the logical choice. I think the 16-85 is the best of your list. And the modern coatings on the 16-85 will help with shots that have the sun in them. The 20-40 has the "Limited" mystique but I think the 16-85 is far more practical.

**turbo_bird** · 01-03-2021, 02:47 PM

Thanks for all the advice here. I think even just putting my thoughts in writing has clarified things a bit for me too. I re-read the relavent lens tests and reviews again last night, and I think the 16-85 probably makes the most sense for me as a leave on the camera lens. I think if I had a nice 20mm prime I'd maybe just get a 15 or 16mm prime and completely forgo the zoom, but historically a lot of my pictures have been taken around 19-20 mm with the 16-45. Does anyone have SMC A 20 f2.8 they want to donate? I think the 16-85 should work quite well as a single lens to take with for hiking too, with the longer zoom and the sealing to match the camera. I pulled out my tripod and took a few test pictures of my Christmas tree, figuring the needles would be a good test of sharpness. My 16-45 is definitely less sharp in some areas of the frame than my old 24 and 28mm primes. I didn't upload the test shot to my computer or anything, just looked at them at 100% on the K3 display. I moved forward with the wide angle to fill the frame to roughly the same degree as with the longer primes. The 28 especially is nothing to turn my nose up at. I'll keep using them when I want to play a bit, and keep my eye open for a deal on a 20 mm and a 16 mm to add to the collection. As much as I love the idea of the 20-40 Limited, I think the 16-85 will make more sense for me at this time. Bonus, B&H had a used 16-85 for $410, so I've ordered that. Apparently it's almost $800 here in Canada with our funny money, $410 US comes out to around $520 Canadian. Happy new year to everyone, and hopefully we all get some good photos this year.
Kristian

**Viking42** · 01-03-2021, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

The 16-45 has a good reputation, though it is possible yours needs either AF fine tuning or has some internal damage.

I would agree with this. Although it may be moot now that you've ordered the 16-85, it still may be worth doing a focus test and in-camera adjustment for the old 16-45. It should be as sharp as your film era lenses. I have the lowly 18-55 WR kit lens, which does not have such a great rep here, and I did similar testing to what you did with your Christmas tree. To my surprise the lens held its own rather well against some of my old film lenses. Your 16-45 should be just as good or better.

To test and adjust front or back-focus problems, see this:

Fixing Front and Back Focus - The Remedy - In-Depth Articles

I've never had to do it, but it seems quite simple.

Hope this helps.

Rgds,
Svend

tibbitts · 01-03-2021, 06:51 PM - **1 Like**

How did you focus - live view, AF or manual? I would not assume viewfinder AF would give the correct focus.

The 16-45 was my first digital-era lens, along with the 50-200, on a K100. I don't know if it's because the lens got worse, or it was just going to 16mp, but I'm not as happy with it now, especially for vertical orientation like your photo, where gravity can have a greater influence on that barrel.

**turbo_bird** · 01-03-2021, 07:16 PM

Thanks for the article on fixing focus issues, I hadn't actually read anything about that. Even if my lens does have front or back focus issues, I don't think that could cause the issue I'm having. The picture with the closeup samples I posted was taken using manual focus and live view, on a tripod and using the 2 second timer to avoid any camera movement. With a normal landscape orientation picture, a significant part of the right and left sides of the frame are blurry, but much worse on the right side. It's really weird having most of the frame far enough away that it should be basically at infinity focus, and the edges are as blurry as they are. I don't know what could do that internally, but my lens does have a fair amount of wobble when extended to 16mm. Moving the barrel when I was trying to see what was going on today didn't seem to change the focus much on live view though, just the framing. I tried looking through the lens with a bright light to see if there's any damage. Other than a bit of dust it looked fine, but I'm not really sure what I should be looking for anyway. I'll keep playing with it though and see if I can get to the bottom of the issue.
Kristian

**Viking42** · 01-03-2021, 07:54 PM

Hmmm...yeah, you might be right - there's probably something misaligned in there. A good camera repair tech might be able to fix that for a reasonable price, if the lens is worth it. I have had a few lenses repaired here locally (S. Ontario), and the cost was always relatively modest.

Best of luck with the new lens though! I've been pondering the same thing -- good prime or high quality wide zoom for landscapes. No decisions yet, but that 16-85 is on my short list.

**turbo_bird** · 01-03-2021, 09:16 PM

Yeah, someday I'll get some wider primes too, but for now a zoom will do. I've had the 16-45 since 2007 and it's seen a lot of use in lots of different weather, including wet, so it's served me well. I wish I could spring for a couple primes at the moment, but it's not really in the budget right now. I hadn't really looked at how good or bad my old film primes were at 100%, just took it on faith that all the talk about new lenses being much better was correct. I do enjoy using them, especially now with live view to help with focus, so they certainly won't be put away to be forgotten about, and who knows, maybe someday I will find an A20 f2.8 for a good price. The DA21 would be nice too, such a tiny lens. Be spoiled for choices isn't the worst problem to have. I still think the next lens (after this one) for me will be a fast wide angle suitable for astrophotography.
Kristian

**mikesbike** · 01-03-2021, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by turbo_bird

I think the 16-85 probably makes the most sense

I think so too. I don't have this lens, but considering what you are looking for, this should be an ideal match, providing fine age-to-edge quality, even at or close to wide open aperture. It will also be an upgrade over your old DA 16-45mm in numerous ways, including AF, in its WR build quality, and in providing additional zoom range. And, you still get down to 16mm at the wide end.

tibbitts · 01-04-2021, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by turbo_bird

Thanks for the article on fixing focus issues, I hadn't actually read anything about that. Even if my lens does have front or back focus issues, I don't think that could cause the issue I'm having. The picture with the closeup samples I posted was taken using manual focus and live view, on a tripod and using the 2 second timer to avoid any camera movement. With a normal landscape orientation picture, a significant part of the right and left sides of the frame are blurry, but much worse on the right side. It's really weird having most of the frame far enough away that it should be basically at infinity focus, and the edges are as blurry as they are. I don't know what could do that internally, but my lens does have a fair amount of wobble when extended to 16mm. Moving the barrel when I was trying to see what was going on today didn't seem to change the focus much on live view though, just the framing. I tried looking through the lens with a bright light to see if there's any damage. Other than a bit of dust it looked fine, but I'm not really sure what I should be looking for anyway. I'll keep playing with it though and see if I can get to the bottom of the issue.
Kristian

If you took the pictures with MF with magnified live view and the left and right sides are different then there is almost surely something wrong with the lens. I have the 16-85mm as well and if you get a good copy it performs significantly better than the 16-45. But make sure you check for the same problems with a new 16-85mm. I went through several new 16-85s and some of them were terrible. Check at different focal lengths and also at different distances. I wouldn't have thought distance would matter but it does with mine (some issues that might show up at 3ft might not near infinity.)

01-02-2021, 07:41 PM	#1
turbo_bird Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Kamloops, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 711	Decisions, decisions, decisions I've had a Pentax DSLR for quite a while, and have been using lots of my old manual focus lenses along with my trusty 16-45 f4 on my old K10D and K20D, but recently upgraded to a K3. With the increased resolution potential of the newer camera and no anti alias filter it would be nice to potentially upgrade my lens selection to match. I mostly shoot nature/landscape pictures, and am pretty used to using manual focus lenses. Live view with focus peaking is great! I guess my question is, would something like the DA 17-70 f4, DA 16-85 f3.5-5.6, or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC macro be a meaningful upgrade over my old 16-45, image quality wise? I'm usually stopped down to around f8 or so when doing landscapes, but the better autofocus and longer zoom range would be nice sometimes for just everyday walk around type stuff, especially if the image quality is better than my old 16-45. I also sometimes like to have the sun in the shot and stop down further for a nice sun star, if that makes a difference with these lenses. I'm also thinking of picking up a Samyang 16 f2 for night photos, and haven't really ever felt the need to go wider than 16mm for any of my pictures before. Ive been pouring over the reviews section for a while now, but there's so many good choices that it's getting hard to decide. I seem to be using my SMC 24 f3.5, SMC 28 f2.8, and SMC A 50 f2 lenses more all the time, but old film lenses aren't exactly ideal on a high resolution APSC body either. First world problems I guess. To complicate things even more, part of me wants to just get the DA 20-40 Limited, and the Samyang to handle the wide end. I'm also not opposed to buying used, which puts them all except the 20-40 at roughly $400 right now. That doesn't make the choose any easier. Thanks in advance for any help. Kristian Last edited by turbo_bird; 01-02-2021 at 07:49 PM.

01-02-2021, 09:54 PM - 2 Likes	#5
turbo_bird Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Kamloops, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 711 Original Poster	I suppose my 16-45 could be damaged internally, it's been through a fair bit including a motorcycle crash or two while in a Lowepro backpack. It seems quite soft around the edges on the newer body, even stopped down to f8. These samples were taken at 19mm, f8, with a good tripod and 2 second timer to avoid camera shake. I even seem to have more detail in the reflection of the top of the mountain than the non-reflected mountaintop. The full picture. Center of the frame. Mountains at top left. Trees at right edge. Top of central mountain. And the reflection of the mountaintop, which is also at the edge of the frame, but much sharper than the top of the frame. Other shots taken with this lens and body at various f stops are similar, which is sort of why I've been using my old primes more lately. Unfortunately I don't have an option wider than 24mm with them. Looking back at previous pictures (mostly with my K10D) I don't notice this, and I don't think any of them show a focal length between 16 and 19mm, so the 20-40 would be fine along with a 16mm prime. The more I look at this, the more I think that there might be more to this than just the lens not being as good as I used to think. For longer stuff I've got an old SMC A 70-210 f4 that does pretty good, and a SMC A 400 f5.6. Manual focus is a bit tougher than my K10D with the Katz eye focus screen I added though, might have to see about a different focus screen for the K3 too. Kristian Last edited by turbo_bird; 01-02-2021 at 10:08 PM.

01-03-2021, 07:16 PM	#11
turbo_bird Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Kamloops, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 711 Original Poster	Thanks for the article on fixing focus issues, I hadn't actually read anything about that. Even if my lens does have front or back focus issues, I don't think that could cause the issue I'm having. The picture with the closeup samples I posted was taken using manual focus and live view, on a tripod and using the 2 second timer to avoid any camera movement. With a normal landscape orientation picture, a significant part of the right and left sides of the frame are blurry, but much worse on the right side. It's really weird having most of the frame far enough away that it should be basically at infinity focus, and the edges are as blurry as they are. I don't know what could do that internally, but my lens does have a fair amount of wobble when extended to 16mm. Moving the barrel when I was trying to see what was going on today didn't seem to change the focus much on live view though, just the framing. I tried looking through the lens with a bright light to see if there's any damage. Other than a bit of dust it looked fine, but I'm not really sure what I should be looking for anyway. I'll keep playing with it though and see if I can get to the bottom of the issue. Kristian Last edited by turbo_bird; 01-03-2021 at 07:23 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Travel Decisions, decisions ...	RICHARD L.	Post Your Photos!	10	10-20-2019 07:42 AM
Decisions, decisions... finally got some $$$ to spend.	Zephos	General Photography	21	03-18-2019 07:54 AM
Decisions, decisions, decisions...	SlickYamaha	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	06-30-2011 05:39 AM
Decisions, decisions, decisions.....	Mallee Boy	Post Your Photos!	10	04-22-2009 07:55 PM
Decisions, decisions...... oh, the decisions...!	Derridale	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	04-30-2008 05:02 PM

01-02-2021, 08:10 PM	#2
bschriver11 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2008 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 558	I would suggest the DA 35 F/2.4. It is light and compact and performs well above the cheap price, I have one and I love it!!

01-02-2021, 09:06 PM	#3
jumbleview Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Concord, CA Posts: 1,068	What's wrong with 16-45 on K3? I have it and like it very much on K-01 and K5ii. It is almost as sharp as Sigma 17-50 HSM and colors I like better. Alas, I do not have 24Mpixel camera to compare. .

01-02-2021, 09:42 PM	#4
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,290	I can only comment on one lens in your group, which is the DA 20-40 Ltd, easily my favorite wide lens that I have now or have had, it's well built, compact, silent focusing, weather resistant and just delivers great IQ. I have read a lot of good things about the 16-85. I've not read much about the 16-45 so I can't compare anything, but if you like it and don't need WR why not keep it. I also shoot mostly nature and landscapes, you don't mention longer length but the DA 55-300 PLM is great lens in that price range, compact, WR, and the fastest autofocus of any Pentax lens.

01-03-2021, 09:24 AM	#6
richard0170 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,030	Originally posted by turbo_bird I've had a Pentax DSLR for quite a while, and have been using lots of my old manual focus lenses along with my trusty 16-45 f4 on my old K10D and K20D, but recently upgraded to a K3. With the increased resolution potential of the newer camera and no anti alias filter it would be nice to potentially upgrade my lens selection to match. I mostly shoot nature/landscape pictures, and am pretty used to using manual focus lenses. Live view with focus peaking is great! I guess my question is, would something like the DA 17-70 f4, DA 16-85 f3.5-5.6, or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC macro be a meaningful upgrade over my old 16-45, image quality wise? I'm usually stopped down to around f8 or so when doing landscapes, but the better autofocus and longer zoom range would be nice sometimes for just everyday walk around type stuff, especially if the image quality is better than my old 16-45. I also sometimes like to have the sun in the shot and stop down further for a nice sun star, if that makes a difference with these lenses. I'm also thinking of picking up a Samyang 16 f2 for night photos, and haven't really ever felt the need to go wider than 16mm for any of my pictures before. Ive been pouring over the reviews section for a while now, but there's so many good choices that it's getting hard to decide. I seem to be using my SMC 24 f3.5, SMC 28 f2.8, and SMC A 50 f2 lenses more all the time, but old film lenses aren't exactly ideal on a high resolution APSC body either. First world problems I guess. To complicate things even more, part of me wants to just get the DA 20-40 Limited, and the Samyang to handle the wide end. I'm also not opposed to buying used, which puts them all except the 20-40 at roughly $400 right now. That doesn't make the choose any easier. Thanks in advance for any help. Kristian There are any number of suitable primes available. For budget go for the DA 35mm f2.4 or 50mm f1.8, both good sharp lenses. Any of the HD primes are good too but at an increased cost obviously. As a K3 (and KP) user myself, I can testify to the quality of several legacy MF lenses. My personal favourites in FL order are:- K 28mm f3.5, K30m F2.8, A 35mm f2.0, Auto Revuenon 50mm f1.4, A 50mm f2.8 Macro, K 50mm f4 Macro, M 100mm f4 Macro and K 135mm f2.5. Some of these like the K 30 f2.8 and A 35 f2.0 can be hard to get hold of (and relatively expensive). Others like the M 100 f4 and K 28mm f3.5 less so. One thing to bear in mind with these old F lenses, is how you are going to focus them. Modern viewfinder screens are optimized for slower lenses, and fast glass is not easy to focus through the viewfinder, but is easy via focus peaking on the rear screen. I have put a Focusingscreens.com prism screen in my K3 for use with fast glass and use the slower glass with my KP. You seem to suggest an interest in a wider lens, in which case the Ltd. 15mm f4 is a very good choice.

01-03-2021, 09:59 AM	#7
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	The 16-45 has a good reputation, though it is possible yours needs either AF fine tuning or has some internal damage. Of the lenses in your list I only have the 16-85 and it basically lives on my K-3II. You have primes for when you want them so a good modern zoom to replace your 16-45 would seem the logical choice. I think the 16-85 is the best of your list. And the modern coatings on the 16-85 will help with shots that have the sun in them. The 20-40 has the "Limited" mystique but I think the 16-85 is far more practical.

01-03-2021, 02:47 PM	#8
turbo_bird Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Kamloops, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 711 Original Poster	Thanks for all the advice here. I think even just putting my thoughts in writing has clarified things a bit for me too. I re-read the relavent lens tests and reviews again last night, and I think the 16-85 probably makes the most sense for me as a leave on the camera lens. I think if I had a nice 20mm prime I'd maybe just get a 15 or 16mm prime and completely forgo the zoom, but historically a lot of my pictures have been taken around 19-20 mm with the 16-45. Does anyone have SMC A 20 f2.8 they want to donate? I think the 16-85 should work quite well as a single lens to take with for hiking too, with the longer zoom and the sealing to match the camera. I pulled out my tripod and took a few test pictures of my Christmas tree, figuring the needles would be a good test of sharpness. My 16-45 is definitely less sharp in some areas of the frame than my old 24 and 28mm primes. I didn't upload the test shot to my computer or anything, just looked at them at 100% on the K3 display. I moved forward with the wide angle to fill the frame to roughly the same degree as with the longer primes. The 28 especially is nothing to turn my nose up at. I'll keep using them when I want to play a bit, and keep my eye open for a deal on a 20 mm and a 16 mm to add to the collection. As much as I love the idea of the 20-40 Limited, I think the 16-85 will make more sense for me at this time. Bonus, B&H had a used 16-85 for $410, so I've ordered that. Apparently it's almost $800 here in Canada with our funny money, $410 US comes out to around $520 Canadian. Happy new year to everyone, and hopefully we all get some good photos this year. Kristian

01-03-2021, 06:26 PM	#9
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by jatrax The 16-45 has a good reputation, though it is possible yours needs either AF fine tuning or has some internal damage. I would agree with this. Although it may be moot now that you've ordered the 16-85, it still may be worth doing a focus test and in-camera adjustment for the old 16-45. It should be as sharp as your film era lenses. I have the lowly 18-55 WR kit lens, which does not have such a great rep here, and I did similar testing to what you did with your Christmas tree. To my surprise the lens held its own rather well against some of my old film lenses. Your 16-45 should be just as good or better. To test and adjust front or back-focus problems, see this: Fixing Front and Back Focus - The Remedy - In-Depth Articles I've never had to do it, but it seems quite simple. Hope this helps. Rgds, Svend

01-03-2021, 06:51 PM - 1 Like	#10
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	How did you focus - live view, AF or manual? I would not assume viewfinder AF would give the correct focus. The 16-45 was my first digital-era lens, along with the 50-200, on a K100. I don't know if it's because the lens got worse, or it was just going to 16mp, but I'm not as happy with it now, especially for vertical orientation like your photo, where gravity can have a greater influence on that barrel.

01-03-2021, 07:54 PM	#12
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Hmmm...yeah, you might be right - there's probably something misaligned in there. A good camera repair tech might be able to fix that for a reasonable price, if the lens is worth it. I have had a few lenses repaired here locally (S. Ontario), and the cost was always relatively modest. Best of luck with the new lens though! I've been pondering the same thing -- good prime or high quality wide zoom for landscapes. No decisions yet, but that 16-85 is on my short list.

01-03-2021, 09:16 PM	#13
turbo_bird Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Kamloops, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 711 Original Poster	Yeah, someday I'll get some wider primes too, but for now a zoom will do. I've had the 16-45 since 2007 and it's seen a lot of use in lots of different weather, including wet, so it's served me well. I wish I could spring for a couple primes at the moment, but it's not really in the budget right now. I hadn't really looked at how good or bad my old film primes were at 100%, just took it on faith that all the talk about new lenses being much better was correct. I do enjoy using them, especially now with live view to help with focus, so they certainly won't be put away to be forgotten about, and who knows, maybe someday I will find an A20 f2.8 for a good price. The DA21 would be nice too, such a tiny lens. Be spoiled for choices isn't the worst problem to have. I still think the next lens (after this one) for me will be a fast wide angle suitable for astrophotography. Kristian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2021, 11:32 PM	#14
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,547	Originally posted by turbo_bird I think the 16-85 probably makes the most sense I think so too. I don't have this lens, but considering what you are looking for, this should be an ideal match, providing fine age-to-edge quality, even at or close to wide open aperture. It will also be an upgrade over your old DA 16-45mm in numerous ways, including AF, in its WR build quality, and in providing additional zoom range. And, you still get down to 16mm at the wide end.

01-04-2021, 09:14 AM	#15
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by turbo_bird Thanks for the article on fixing focus issues, I hadn't actually read anything about that. Even if my lens does have front or back focus issues, I don't think that could cause the issue I'm having. The picture with the closeup samples I posted was taken using manual focus and live view, on a tripod and using the 2 second timer to avoid any camera movement. With a normal landscape orientation picture, a significant part of the right and left sides of the frame are blurry, but much worse on the right side. It's really weird having most of the frame far enough away that it should be basically at infinity focus, and the edges are as blurry as they are. I don't know what could do that internally, but my lens does have a fair amount of wobble when extended to 16mm. Moving the barrel when I was trying to see what was going on today didn't seem to change the focus much on live view though, just the framing. I tried looking through the lens with a bright light to see if there's any damage. Other than a bit of dust it looked fine, but I'm not really sure what I should be looking for anyway. I'll keep playing with it though and see if I can get to the bottom of the issue. Kristian If you took the pictures with MF with magnified live view and the left and right sides are different then there is almost surely something wrong with the lens. I have the 16-85mm as well and if you get a good copy it performs significantly better than the 16-45. But make sure you check for the same problems with a new 16-85mm. I went through several new 16-85s and some of them were terrible. Check at different focal lengths and also at different distances. I wouldn't have thought distance would matter but it does with mine (some issues that might show up at 3ft might not near infinity.)