Dilemma - DA 16-85 or DA* 16-50?

**Rondec** · 05-19-2021, 02:36 AM - **2 Likes**

If you need f2.8 then go for the 16-50, otherwise get the 16-85. I own the 16-50 and it is a decent lens (not great). Weaknesses are border softness wide open, tendency to flare, and some fringing wide open. It still is more than capable of getting really nice shots. The whole SDM is a question mark. I've owned mine for nearly 15 years and the SDM still works, but plenty of others have struggled with theirs. I think that's more of a gamble than anything.

telum · 05-19-2021, 02:37 AM - **1 Like**

There is also the Sigma 17-70 contemp. to take into consideration as a cheaper option. It has served me very well as a general walk around lens and it is quite fast at the wide end f1/2.8..

**TwoUptons** · 05-19-2021, 03:29 AM - **1 Like**

I have a 16-50 and am a fan. Good quality images and mine has been solid (touch wood).

I bought it to use with my K10, and I used it as the main lens on my K-01, where it was outstanding.

I will note it shades the flash rather severely, especially with the hood on.

And I'll agree with the folks suggesting there isn't much difference between 45 and 50 mm ... so unless your 16-45 is wobbly or you need f2.8, you might not see much functional improvement there...

Hiking a lot, something smaller would be better, but a 16-50 and 55-300 is a pretty potent combo...

If you just want a fast lens for shooting people, you could do worse than buying an inexpensive 50mm f1.7 or something similar -- and that would leave plenty for other lenses later...

-Eric

Kozlok · 05-19-2021, 06:37 AM - **3 Likes**

Because I'm crazy, I own the 18-135, the 16-50 and the 16-85, as well as the v1 of the Sigma 17-70. Each of them have their use cases for me, but for sure all of the other lenses in that group has better edge sharpness than the 18-135. For the other three, if you are very critical at 1:1, you can find IQ differences, but they aren't worth worrying about. For your stated purpose, finding 45mm a bit short; I would go with the 16-85. The Sigma is equally good, but not WR.

For me:
18-135; a one lens solution for when I might need more reach.
16-85: My workhorse for when I don't know what I might be doing. I often supplement it with a fast prime in case I need the aperture.
16-50: This is what I take when I'll be shooting indoors. Most of my family stuff is with this lens.
Sigma 17-70; I use this mostly when I want the super-close focusing; mostly used at the wide end. At the long end, I'd probably just grab a macro.

I also concur that upgrading to a K70 is a big upgrade; if you shoot in low-light. It's an easy 2 stop improvement over the K30.

Pelto · 05-19-2021, 07:13 AM - **2 Likes**

Would like to suggest something else, namely Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM.
Has been my favorite walk around lens for quite a few years, super sharp, good auto focus and reasonably priced

yellowbrick · 05-19-2021, 10:35 AM - **1 Like**

Thank you all for these interesting and helpful comments! I am convinced I should upgrade my K-30 to a newer body, probably KP or K-70 if I can get a good deal on either. Seems to be the better route for me to go at this point instead of buying new lenses and selling old ones. This is why I love the PF -- so much useful information!!

seventysixersfan · 05-19-2021, 10:37 AM - **1 Like**

KP or K-70 will be awesome upgrades. Do you need the flippy swivel screen of the K-70 or just the tilt up/down of KP? K-70 should be cheaper too. But autofocus performance and low light performance should be much better than your K-30. I went from K-50 to my KP and love it!!

Bertrand3000 · 05-19-2021, 11:03 AM - **2 Likes**

If 45mm is too narrow for you, then 16-50 is out of the table. If you want to buy only one lens, I would recommend either the 16-85 (WR and more versatile), or the Sigma 17-70 (faster).

But I agree that you will benefit more of upgrading to either KP or K-70.

**mikesbike** · 05-19-2021, 06:29 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Pelto

Would like to suggest something else, namely Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM.

This is the one I went for. I have it for when I want greater aperture, and it has been a fine performer. Not WR, but a very well-built and well-designed lens. A top-notch copy should be available at a much lower price than the Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 so you could put the savings towards a camera upgrade. I also have the DA 18-135mm WR lens, now some 10 years. It is better than its reputation, as my newest camera bodies have revealed. I now shoot with the KP as my main body. This can be seen when reviewing the thread "DA 18-135mm WR Show us what it can do" upon starting with the last most recent page and going backwards. You will find upon scrutiny, the improved image quality (depending of course on the photographer and subject matter) those taken with more recent camera models like the KP will exhibit the improved image quality over those taken with more vintage camera bodies. The more you look at a larger number of examples, the more you will see this. Proof that his lens keeps up with advancements instead of being surpassed in quality!

The tool that works best for the occasion is the one to take. DA 18-135mm is great for those family candids you mentioned. If you had a K-70 or better yet a KP, the superior high-ISO performance can allow going without flash to accomplish success in getting what you are after. And the camera upgrade will reveal how good your lenses really are, if they are up to the challenge! If I am out for max quality along with low light needs, I take my Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 along with my Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, a wonderful combo. Otherwise, it is the DA 18-135mm WR and I am happy to have it. Since the arrival of the new K-3 III, there might be more used KP bodies appearing for sale.

ChristianRock · 05-21-2021, 09:21 AM - **2 Likes**

I have the DA*16-50 and the DA 16-45, which I used for several years. Haven't had the 16-85 or the 18-135 and honestly, I have no desire to have them from the pictures I've seen. In the IQ vs Convenience compromise, I try to keep my zooms at 3x range max. As the Sigma CEO once famously said, "there are no miracles in optics" and 3x zooms offer a compromise in IQ that is not huge (if they are good designs) while also giving quite a bit of convenience.

I have not desired the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 offerings either, their images just never appealed to me as much as the 16-50 (and even the 16-45) did.

Between the 16-45 and the 16-50, I'd say this: the 16-45 is a very good lens IQ-wise, the 16-50 is just a little bit better in all respects. And in relation to build quality, it's a LOT better in all aspects (mine is screwdriver AF converted, so I'm not considering the SDM motor). With my copy at least, at f2.8 it's not soft, but not quite as sharp as stopped down even 1/3 of a stop where it's great. Wide open there's a slight decrease of that "almost magical" microcontrast that I feel this lens offers. But at f3.2 and smaller, it's all there. So I tend to use it at f3.2 in low light a lot unless I really need that f2.8, which rarely ever happens, unless I'm using one of my older 10MP CCD cameras.

**UncleVanya** · 05-21-2021, 05:08 PM - **1 Like**

An unpopular lens that I like is the 17-70 f4 Pentax. The refurbished one I got my niece is still going strong many many years later. The iq is very very good.

yellowbrick · 05-21-2021, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Between the 16-45 and the 16-50, I'd say this: the 16-45 is a very good lens IQ-wise, the 16-50 is just a little bit better in all respects. And in relation to build quality, it's a LOT better in all aspects (mine is screwdriver AF converted, so I'm not considering the SDM motor). With my copy at least, at f2.8 it's not soft, but not quite as sharp as stopped down even 1/3 of a stop where it's great. Wide open there's a slight decrease of that "almost magical" microcontrast that I feel this lens offers. But at f3.2 and smaller, it's all there. So I tend to use it at f3.2 in low light a lot unless I really need that f2.8, which rarely ever happens, unless I'm using one of my older 10MP CCD cameras.

this is super helpful, thank you!

tibbitts · 05-22-2021, 09:02 PM

I've had the 16-45, 16-85, and Sigma 17-50. The 16-45 was a good first lens - on my K100. It's not in the same league with either of the other two - not even close - and has significant barrel wobble. I believe mine is a decent copy - no obvious decentering, except what occurs due to the barrel wobble, which was evident from when it was new. The other two lenses have different pros and cons. I went through a lot of (new) copies of the 16-85 trying to get a good copy. The one I settled on now has the jumpy image problems all the 16-85s seem to have, and is a little off on the right side, but only at close focus settings and longer focal lengths. But otherwise it has good sharpness across the frame, so I'd call it a good copy. It also fails to lock AF sometimes, at first frequently, but lately it hardly ever does that. At first almost every time I had some critical situation it wouldn't lock AF (with either of my bodies, so not a body issue), and I'd reboot, at which point it would usually lock focus again - after I'd lost the shot. The 17-50 I bought used from a forum member. I haven't got the AF adjustment where it needs to be, and as with many zooms (especially f2.8) it might not have a consistent AF adjustment at every focal length. For what I use it for I can almost always use live view AF or even manually focus (on the other hand, viewfinder MF with the 16-85 isn't possible for me.) The 17-50 has good sharpness across the frame and I'm very happy with it - in some ways happier than with the 16-85. Just based on what I've read I'd have no interest in a Pentax 16-50mm unless maybe it was the new version. It very occasionally needs wiggling to get any of my bodies to recognize that it has AF, as is the case with every Sigma lens I have - it's one of the better Sigma lenses I have in this regard.

timb64 · 05-23-2021, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by tibbitts

The one I settled on now has the jumpy image problems all the 16-85s seem to have, .

I’ve had the lens for five years and have never experienced this problem so it’s wrong to say all 16-85s have it.

tibbitts · 05-23-2021, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by timb64

I’ve had the lens for five years and have never experienced this problem so it’s wrong to say all 16-85s have it.

Okay, my guess would then be nearly all, just based on four (new) 16-85s I've experienced having had the problem, plus the number of complaints reported here on PF. It's not a particularly fatal flaw compared to all the other problems most lenses have; it's just mildly annoying for my uses. It does give the impression that the lens isn't very precisely constructed, although I'll say the 16-85 is a step up in construction from the 16-45. The weather sealing on the 16-85 is a nice bonus, although typically lenses don't seem to be as sensitive to water as bodies, even when the lenses aren't weather-sealed.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A comparison between DFA 85, FA 85 and A 85	kinkindoll	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	07-17-2020 04:11 PM
SMC DA* 16-50 vs HD DA 16-85	Clavius	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	04-01-2020 12:56 AM
Lens dilemma: Give up DA 12-24 for DA* 16-50??	enoxatnep	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-04-2014 12:46 PM
Dilemma, dilemma ...	Bronco	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	04-15-2008 05:39 PM

05-19-2021, 02:36 AM - 2 Likes	#16
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	If you need f2.8 then go for the 16-50, otherwise get the 16-85. I own the 16-50 and it is a decent lens (not great). Weaknesses are border softness wide open, tendency to flare, and some fringing wide open. It still is more than capable of getting really nice shots. The whole SDM is a question mark. I've owned mine for nearly 15 years and the SDM still works, but plenty of others have struggled with theirs. I think that's more of a gamble than anything.

05-19-2021, 02:37 AM - 1 Like	#17
telum Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 45	There is also the Sigma 17-70 contemp. to take into consideration as a cheaper option. It has served me very well as a general walk around lens and it is quite fast at the wide end f1/2.8..

05-19-2021, 03:29 AM - 1 Like	#18
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,215	I have a 16-50 and am a fan. Good quality images and mine has been solid (touch wood). I bought it to use with my K10, and I used it as the main lens on my K-01, where it was outstanding. I will note it shades the flash rather severely, especially with the hood on. And I'll agree with the folks suggesting there isn't much difference between 45 and 50 mm ... so unless your 16-45 is wobbly or you need f2.8, you might not see much functional improvement there... Hiking a lot, something smaller would be better, but a 16-50 and 55-300 is a pretty potent combo... If you just want a fast lens for shooting people, you could do worse than buying an inexpensive 50mm f1.7 or something similar -- and that would leave plenty for other lenses later... -Eric

05-19-2021, 06:37 AM - 3 Likes	#19
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Because I'm crazy, I own the 18-135, the 16-50 and the 16-85, as well as the v1 of the Sigma 17-70. Each of them have their use cases for me, but for sure all of the other lenses in that group has better edge sharpness than the 18-135. For the other three, if you are very critical at 1:1, you can find IQ differences, but they aren't worth worrying about. For your stated purpose, finding 45mm a bit short; I would go with the 16-85. The Sigma is equally good, but not WR. For me: 18-135; a one lens solution for when I might need more reach. 16-85: My workhorse for when I don't know what I might be doing. I often supplement it with a fast prime in case I need the aperture. 16-50: This is what I take when I'll be shooting indoors. Most of my family stuff is with this lens. Sigma 17-70; I use this mostly when I want the super-close focusing; mostly used at the wide end. At the long end, I'd probably just grab a macro. I also concur that upgrading to a K70 is a big upgrade; if you shoot in low-light. It's an easy 2 stop improvement over the K30.

05-19-2021, 07:13 AM - 2 Likes	#20
Pelto Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: West Denmark Posts: 226	Would like to suggest something else, namely Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM. Has been my favorite walk around lens for quite a few years, super sharp, good auto focus and reasonably priced

05-19-2021, 10:35 AM - 1 Like	#21
yellowbrick Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Southern Maryland Posts: 110 Original Poster	Thank you all for these interesting and helpful comments! I am convinced I should upgrade my K-30 to a newer body, probably KP or K-70 if I can get a good deal on either. Seems to be the better route for me to go at this point instead of buying new lenses and selling old ones. This is why I love the PF -- so much useful information!!

05-19-2021, 10:37 AM - 1 Like	#22
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	KP or K-70 will be awesome upgrades. Do you need the flippy swivel screen of the K-70 or just the tilt up/down of KP? K-70 should be cheaper too. But autofocus performance and low light performance should be much better than your K-30. I went from K-50 to my KP and love it!!

05-19-2021, 11:03 AM - 2 Likes	#23
Bertrand3000 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 2,009	If 45mm is too narrow for you, then 16-50 is out of the table. If you want to buy only one lens, I would recommend either the 16-85 (WR and more versatile), or the Sigma 17-70 (faster). But I agree that you will benefit more of upgrading to either KP or K-70.

05-19-2021, 06:29 PM - 2 Likes	#24
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,551	Originally posted by Pelto Would like to suggest something else, namely Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM. This is the one I went for. I have it for when I want greater aperture, and it has been a fine performer. Not WR, but a very well-built and well-designed lens. A top-notch copy should be available at a much lower price than the Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 so you could put the savings towards a camera upgrade. I also have the DA 18-135mm WR lens, now some 10 years. It is better than its reputation, as my newest camera bodies have revealed. I now shoot with the KP as my main body. This can be seen when reviewing the thread "DA 18-135mm WR Show us what it can do" upon starting with the last most recent page and going backwards. You will find upon scrutiny, the improved image quality (depending of course on the photographer and subject matter) those taken with more recent camera models like the KP will exhibit the improved image quality over those taken with more vintage camera bodies. The more you look at a larger number of examples, the more you will see this. Proof that his lens keeps up with advancements instead of being surpassed in quality! The tool that works best for the occasion is the one to take. DA 18-135mm is great for those family candids you mentioned. If you had a K-70 or better yet a KP, the superior high-ISO performance can allow going without flash to accomplish success in getting what you are after. And the camera upgrade will reveal how good your lenses really are, if they are up to the challenge! If I am out for max quality along with low light needs, I take my Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 along with my Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, a wonderful combo. Otherwise, it is the DA 18-135mm WR and I am happy to have it. Since the arrival of the new K-3 III, there might be more used KP bodies appearing for sale.

05-21-2021, 09:21 AM - 2 Likes	#25
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	I have the DA*16-50 and the DA 16-45, which I used for several years. Haven't had the 16-85 or the 18-135 and honestly, I have no desire to have them from the pictures I've seen. In the IQ vs Convenience compromise, I try to keep my zooms at 3x range max. As the Sigma CEO once famously said, "there are no miracles in optics" and 3x zooms offer a compromise in IQ that is not huge (if they are good designs) while also giving quite a bit of convenience. I have not desired the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 offerings either, their images just never appealed to me as much as the 16-50 (and even the 16-45) did. Between the 16-45 and the 16-50, I'd say this: the 16-45 is a very good lens IQ-wise, the 16-50 is just a little bit better in all respects. And in relation to build quality, it's a LOT better in all aspects (mine is screwdriver AF converted, so I'm not considering the SDM motor). With my copy at least, at f2.8 it's not soft, but not quite as sharp as stopped down even 1/3 of a stop where it's great. Wide open there's a slight decrease of that "almost magical" microcontrast that I feel this lens offers. But at f3.2 and smaller, it's all there. So I tend to use it at f3.2 in low light a lot unless I really need that f2.8, which rarely ever happens, unless I'm using one of my older 10MP CCD cameras.

05-21-2021, 05:08 PM - 1 Like	#26
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,407	An unpopular lens that I like is the 17-70 f4 Pentax. The refurbished one I got my niece is still going strong many many years later. The iq is very very good.

05-21-2021, 07:09 PM	#27
yellowbrick Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Southern Maryland Posts: 110 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChristianRock Between the 16-45 and the 16-50, I'd say this: the 16-45 is a very good lens IQ-wise, the 16-50 is just a little bit better in all respects. And in relation to build quality, it's a LOT better in all aspects (mine is screwdriver AF converted, so I'm not considering the SDM motor). With my copy at least, at f2.8 it's not soft, but not quite as sharp as stopped down even 1/3 of a stop where it's great. Wide open there's a slight decrease of that "almost magical" microcontrast that I feel this lens offers. But at f3.2 and smaller, it's all there. So I tend to use it at f3.2 in low light a lot unless I really need that f2.8, which rarely ever happens, unless I'm using one of my older 10MP CCD cameras. this is super helpful, thank you!

05-22-2021, 09:02 PM	#28
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	I've had the 16-45, 16-85, and Sigma 17-50. The 16-45 was a good first lens - on my K100. It's not in the same league with either of the other two - not even close - and has significant barrel wobble. I believe mine is a decent copy - no obvious decentering, except what occurs due to the barrel wobble, which was evident from when it was new. The other two lenses have different pros and cons. I went through a lot of (new) copies of the 16-85 trying to get a good copy. The one I settled on now has the jumpy image problems all the 16-85s seem to have, and is a little off on the right side, but only at close focus settings and longer focal lengths. But otherwise it has good sharpness across the frame, so I'd call it a good copy. It also fails to lock AF sometimes, at first frequently, but lately it hardly ever does that. At first almost every time I had some critical situation it wouldn't lock AF (with either of my bodies, so not a body issue), and I'd reboot, at which point it would usually lock focus again - after I'd lost the shot. The 17-50 I bought used from a forum member. I haven't got the AF adjustment where it needs to be, and as with many zooms (especially f2.8) it might not have a consistent AF adjustment at every focal length. For what I use it for I can almost always use live view AF or even manually focus (on the other hand, viewfinder MF with the 16-85 isn't possible for me.) The 17-50 has good sharpness across the frame and I'm very happy with it - in some ways happier than with the 16-85. Just based on what I've read I'd have no interest in a Pentax 16-50mm unless maybe it was the new version. It very occasionally needs wiggling to get any of my bodies to recognize that it has AF, as is the case with every Sigma lens I have - it's one of the better Sigma lenses I have in this regard.

05-23-2021, 01:40 AM	#29
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by tibbitts The one I settled on now has the jumpy image problems all the 16-85s seem to have, . I’ve had the lens for five years and have never experienced this problem so it’s wrong to say all 16-85s have it.

05-23-2021, 10:04 AM	#30
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by timb64 I’ve had the lens for five years and have never experienced this problem so it’s wrong to say all 16-85s have it. Okay, my guess would then be nearly all, just based on four (new) 16-85s I've experienced having had the problem, plus the number of complaints reported here on PF. It's not a particularly fatal flaw compared to all the other problems most lenses have; it's just mildly annoying for my uses. It does give the impression that the lens isn't very precisely constructed, although I'll say the 16-85 is a step up in construction from the 16-45. The weather sealing on the 16-85 is a nice bonus, although typically lenses don't seem to be as sensitive to water as bodies, even when the lenses aren't weather-sealed.