[yellowbrick]

Hi all -- I know this question has been asked several times but I still would like some feedback. I have a K-30 that is still going strong, no aperture block failure (knock on wood), and my trusty K-01. My two zoom lenses are DA 16-45 and DA 18-135. I have an excellent set of DA limited prime lenses (15, 21, 40, and 70, all the original smc green ring versions) but there are times I'd like to have a single zoom lens when I travel or shoot while hiking/exploring on weekends.

The 18-135 has served me very well, but I think my DA 16-45 produces sharper images that pop more (and I love the 16mm wide end). But the 16-45 is not WR, the screw drive is a bit noisy, and I find sometimes that 45mm is a little too short. So I'm thinking of selling off both lenses and getting a single zoom like DA* 16-50 or DA 16-85. I would like to get one in used condition because my budget is limited. I have seen the DA*16-50 on sale for $300 or so, depending on whether the SDM works or not. The DA 16-85 rarely goes for under $400 used. I think the f/2.8 aperture on the 16-50 would be great for low light shooting but 16-85 seems to be a better zoom range at the telephoto end. I am a bit worried at how heavy and big the DA 16-50 would be on my K-30, to say nothing of it overwhelming my tiny K-01. And then there's the SDM failure worries although I also have failure concerns with my K-30 but have been lucky so far, so why not roll the dice again?

One of my questions is, if you could get a DA* 16-50 used for $250-300 (with a working SDM motor), or a DA 16-85 used for $350-400, which would you get, and why?

Thanks for any thoughts -- you guys are great!! I haven't posted in a long while but getting back into photography now.

[Paul the Sunman]

I haven't used the 16-50, so I can't give a balanced view. However, I can say the 16-85 is a very good workhorse on Pentax APS-C. Although the 18-135 is a great all-purpose lens when travelling light, the 16-85 is very nice for its extra 2mm at the short end and cleaner edges. The 16-85 and 55-300 would be my "two lens solution" when travelling. But I guess the 16-50 would also fit that bill.

[aaacb]

I find sometimes that 45mm is a little too short.

If reach is important to you for a hiking zoom, and to me it is, then the 16-50 isn't much better. I've had and liked a lot the 16-85 when hiking in the mountains and local trails.

[C_Jones]

I have a 16-85 also. I like the range of it and the images it produces are excellent. I usually use mine for shooting landscape or people.

[clickclick]

That's a tough choice. I have the 16-50, and gave my 16-85 to my daughter. How much do you need low light performance? If that's not a concern, I think I'd go for the 16-85. My 16-50 has SDM issues. It needs to be "woken up" if I don't use it. It's not a particularly quick focusing lens, but it is fast if you shoot in dim situations, and if you have a good copy, delivers nice images. The 16-85 has that extra reach, and is speedier to focus, so if you don't need the 2.8, skip the SDM woes and go for the extra reach and focus speed.

[yellowbrick]

Thanks everyone for your comments so far. How is the build quality of the 16-85 compared to the 16-50? I have never used/handled a DA* lens before and part of me wants to see if it's that much more robust-- I know the AW is better weather resistance than WR, right? And is the 16-50 very useable at f/2.8? I've read reports that it needs to be stopped down to become sharp, is that true or is there a lot of sample variation?

---------- Post added 05-18-21 at 10:19 PM ----------

How much do you need low light performance? If that's not a concern, I think I'd go for the 16-85.

I just got an external flash that has a bounce/swivel head, so that seems to work well for low light situations. My fastest lens is the DA 70 f/2.4 but it's a little long for indoor shooting, and my next fastest is the DA 40 f/2.8, but again, it's a touch long when I want to take full body shots of people. So ideally, I'd like a wider angle (less than 30mm) that has at least f/2.8. But if the DA 16-85 is more reliable and faster autofocus despite being a smaller maximum aperture lens compared to the 16-50, maybe that should be the choice for me. And I'm thinking of getting a DA 50-200 or 55-300 to cover my telephoto needs.

[nosillec]

I found my 16-50 used (with working SDM) for around $350 about 4 or 5 years ago. Probably my best lens purchase. Sharpness, color, rendering, etc. are all fantastic. I was initially concerned because of all the negative reviews but I've been very happy. Maybe if I'd paid around $1000 as it was new I'd be disappointed because I'd expect perfection, but $350 was a great price. When I travel or work, I take the 16-50, 43, & 50-135. With that travel kit I've got all my bases covered, except a macro (debated on the 35 vs 43).

It is heavy. I stay away from 25mm, and 45mm because I get a bit of distortion - but everywhere else, it's great. Also, there are definitely times I wish I had extra reach without changing lenses but I'm sure that would happen no matter what.

[clickclick]

Do you ever shoot indoor events? The flash may be hard to use or just a no-no due to disruption. This is where the 16-50 comes into its own. Of course, you then need the 50-135 to go with it.

[yellowbrick]

Maybe if I'd paid around $1000 as it was new I'd be disappointed because I'd expect perfection, but $350 was a great price.

Yes, that's what I was thinking -- for people who bought the lens brand-new at full price, it really stings to have SDM failures. But if I could pick it up for $300 or less, I bet it would be a terrific value and good enough in terms of a return on investment. Thanks for your comments about using your 16-50 -- helps a lot to hear these perspectives.

---------- Post added 05-18-21 at 10:35 PM ----------

Do you ever shoot indoor events? The flash may be hard to use or just a no-no due to disruption. This is where the 16-50 comes into its own.

Hmm, that's a good consideration. I do like shooting candid photos of friends and family on vacation and holiday gatherings, but that needs to be discreet -- and if a big flash goes off, it definitely brings attention to me. So I can see the use of 16-50 in those situations. I should clarify that I'm not a professional and just use my cameras for fun and personal stuff. It's not like I'm being hired to shoot a wedding reception indoors or anything! Thanks a lot for your help.

[caliscouser]

I have both the 16-50 and 16-85 and I used to own the 16-45.

For the usage you described the 16-85 looks like the best fit.
The 16-50 is always one step better through the aperture range in terms of IQ, so if low light is an issue then that's a consideration.

Size and weight wise they don't seem too different on a heavier body like a K-5 or K-3, but on a lighter body the 16-85 would probably feel slightly better balanced.

The 16-85 is pretty good for edge to edge sharpness, better than the 16-50. At the long end the 16-85 seems to degrade a little.
The 16-50 can be provoked into considerable amounts of CA, particularly at the wide end and wider open. The 16-85 is not immune, but better controlled.


Build quality, not much in it. The 16-50 feels slightly better maybe because of its weight.

f/2.8 - The 16-50 is bit glowy wide open, but the center of the frame is usable.

For rendering I prefer the 16-50. It definitely has that DA* look. It's very subtle, but it's there. Slightly richer color signature, micro-contrast, more tonality in the shadows.

[jumbleview]

I have 18-135 and 16-45 too. While indeed 16-45 sometimes I like more but nothing can beat versatility of 18-135. I recently bought slightly used KP (until that I had K-01 and K5II) and I like 18-135 on it very much. Given the fact that you have excellent set of limited primes maybe for you would be wise to invest in K-70, not in a new lens?

[timb64]

I've no experience of the 16-50 but I've owned a 16-85 for about 5 years,originally purchased as an "upgrade" to an 18-135.I couldn't be happier with the IQ,reliability/robustness (it was my only lens on a K5ii on a ten week trip to SE Asia which involved lots of dusty and humid environments) and the extra 2mm at the wide end is quite significant.My opinion would be to stretch the budget if possible!

[UncleVanya]

If the 16-45 is too short the 16-50 will be too short. Full stop.

If you need wider than 18, you could carry your 15. The 18-135/15 is a fine combo. The 15 isn’t weather resistant but the 18-135 is.

The k-30 is nice, but the k-70 and KP crush the high iso performance of that camera. Your existing lenses will function as if 1-2 stops faster effectively. Rather than upgrading a single lens one stop as far as low light goes (16-45 f4 to 16-50 f2.8). Additionally you’re going from 16mp to 24mp which permits deeper crops while retaining sufficient resolution. Improved autofocus, resolution, high iso performance, tilt or tilt and swivel lcd, all come with this change.

The image quality of the 16-85 at the wide end is as good or better than the 16-50. (Based on reading and images compared only since I do not own the 16-85.)

If it were my money I’d look to buy a k-70 used or a KP. Far more bang for your money investing in a body - because of the relative age of the body you have the upside of many cumulative upgrades available for a modest investment of cash.

Edit: steer clear of the 50-200 - the 18-135 at least equals or exceeds the image quality of the 50-200 (even if you have to crop)
The 55-300 plm is the best for your long shots to pair with the 16-85 or 18-135 but the plm lens requires a special firmware hack to work on the k-30.

[Jonathan Mac]

I wouldn't buy the current DA* 16-50 due to SDM failures and poor image quality, at least on many copies. If you want a DA* 16-50mm then wait for the new version, though obviously it'll be much more expensive. If you can live without WR then find a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 - it's an absolutely superb lens.

The 16-85mm is a good lens but does have it's quirks. For me, it's too slow for general use in many circumstances but if the slower aperture doesn't bother you then go for it.

Another option could be the 20-40mm Limited but that covers far less of a focal range. It is WR and excellent quality though.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Hi Yellowbrick, if you think 45mm is to short, do not think about the DA* 16-50. It is just 5mm more, not a huge difference and therefor I think a waste of money. However, if you go for the 16-85 it almost doubles at the long end and that is quite significant. You go from a zoom of a bit short from 3 times to a bit short from 5,5 times zoom. I would go for the 16-85 because it really makes a difference where the 16-50 does not. Hope this helps.