HD DA 16-85... Vs.....DA 16-45 .. sharpness and colors at the wider end (16-20mm)

**Just1MoreDave** · 08-30-2021, 11:16 AM - **1 Like**

That 16-20mm range is where the DA 16-45 is very good. When the original DA* 16-50 came out, tests at the time showed the 16-45 was better at 16mm. It holds up OK compared to the DA15 in some categories too. But it is also where the barrel is extended. I would buy one only if I could check out barrel wobble and return if needed.

It needs a lot of supporting lenses because the long end isn't as good and not very long. That's when the DA 16-85 is a better idea.

**photogem** · 08-30-2021, 11:45 PM - **1 Like**

The DA16-45, if in really good condition, is an excellent lens.
From the K5 onwards but particular with the K3 and then KP and K70 it could show its potential.

I know a very good photographer using as zooms mainly two on his K70: DA55-300PLM and DA16-45.

I myself have a good aligned sample and can highly recommend it.

Test charts don't interest me, nor that silly test on dpreview which is useless as useless can be!

I need to have a lens on my camera and walk around with it for a few days, then I know much more about it.
It is very true, a wobbly version can be terrible. But do to the way it is built it does have naturally some wobble.

It was one of the most special designed and calculated lenses for APS-C, the designer knew a lot about it.
I recall a conversation I had with one of the best Pentax lensspecialists and repairers in USA,
we had a conversation about the FA31ltd. and its design with floated elements.
He explained to me why the FA31ltd. is so difficult to adjust/align.
He told me then that the DA16-45 is of a similar design and if correct aligned, is one of the best zooms Pentax ever built.
That made me buy a few, I selected two of the best, the others I sold again.
If one ever would find one NOS (New Old Stock, sometimes they appear on ebay sold from Japan) then that might be the road to go.

Kozlok · 09-01-2021, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by photogem

That made me buy a few, I selected two of the best, the others I sold again.

Since you had a few, how much variation was there between them? A lot? A little?

**photogem** · 09-01-2021, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Kozlok

Since you had a few, how much variation was there between them? A lot? A little?

Little actually!

**photogem** · 09-01-2021, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

Originally posted by Ronald Oakes

For some reason it seems to me "LOTS" of images from the DA 16-45 online are speaking to me! Not so much with the 16-85..... I keep telling myself it's nothing more than "gear acquisition syndrome" but then I look at the pictures again and it sure seems the other way around LOL

You had it in the film days as well, but then you probably turned the negative over by accident

.

The DA 16-45 is not from the film days!

AfterPentax Mark II · 09-01-2021, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by photogem

The DA 16-45 is not from the film days!

You're kidding!

normhead · 09-01-2021, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

You're kidding!

He's not.
No DA lenses were film lenses, that would be FA lenses.
SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm F4 Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

ChristianRock · 09-01-2021, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II

You're kidding!

Of course it's not a film era lens, since it's not even a full frame lens (but useable from about 21mm to 45mm on film).

Regarding the CA - yes it's there. It's there with my SMC DA*16-50mm f/2.8 as well. If anything, my 16-45 has a bit less. But it only showed up in what, about 1% of my shots. And when it does I corrected it and it wasn't a big deal.

normhead · 09-01-2021, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Of course it's not a film era lens, since it's not even a full frame lens (but useable from about 21mm to 45mm on film).

Regarding the CA - yes it's there. It's there with my SMC DA*16-50mm f/2.8 as well. If anything, my 16-45 has a bit less. But it only showed up in what, about 1% of my shots. And when it does I corrected it and it wasn't a big deal.

Always new information to ponder.

Because I sort of panned it myself, I always noticed when it's been discussed, and after years of paying attention I'm almost certain I should have picked it up when I could have. Sometimes you look for bias confirmation, and it's just not there.

ChristianRock · 09-01-2021, 03:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

Always new information to ponder.

Because I sort of panned it myself, I always noticed when it's been discussed, and after years of paying attention I'm almost certain I should have picked it up when I could have. Sometimes you look for bias confirmation, and it's just not there.

Well... I think a lens can be better than its weakest link - if we are talking chains, sure, the weakest link determines the strength of the whole chain, but this isn't the case here.

To give an example - I quite like my HD DA 18-50mm f/4-5-6 DC WR RE. It's almost CA free, though I have seen it at the extreme corners. It's quite well corrected in almost every way, and the images are sharp, contrasty and nicely saturated from wide open. But when I look at pictures taken with the DA 16-45, they just look a little bit better. I'll keep using the 18-50 for convenience (hardly much bigger than my DA 21 when retracted - and it's lighter, WR, and DC), and I won't get a new DA 16-45 now that this one's "decentered unless straightened" (barrel wobble is so bad I have to hold the barrel straight to get sharp pictures at 16mm). I also have a DA*16-50 since last year as my larger normal zoom - better than the 16-45 but not by that much, and the 16-45 probably has the edge on corner sharpness.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 18-50 should be a better lens according to testing data, as its weakest link is better. But in the sum of it all, the 16-45 I think is a bit better.

My son - DA 16-45

DA 16-45, also on our cruise a couple years ago.

HD DA 18-50... certainly good enough for snaps at the beach.

Obviously I don't have any HD DA 16-85mm pictures...

Ronald Oakes · 09-01-2021, 04:15 PM

I'm also a fan of the DA 18-50.....mine however is the SMC version , not the latest HD DA version.

**photogem** · 09-03-2021, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Ronald Oakes

I'm also a fan of the DA 18-50.....mine however is the SMC version , not the latest HD DA version.

Then you'll going to notice a huge step forward when using the DA16-45.
The SMC DA18-50 to me felt inferior to the DA18-55II or WR in its range. Just quiet DC Motor and pretty light.... but quite a diameter.

Jonathan Mac · 09-03-2021, 07:57 AM

I haven't used the 16-45 but have read very mixed reviews. The 16-85mm has become my landscape lens of choice, both at the wide and telephoto ends, due to it's superb sharpness, colours and contrast. I think that's saying a lot given that I really prefer primes to zooms most of the time.

normhead · 09-03-2021, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I haven't used the 16-45 but have read very mixed reviews. The 16-85mm has become my landscape lens of choice, both at the wide and telephoto ends, due to it's superb sharpness, colours and contrast. I think that's saying a lot given that I really prefer primes to zooms most of the time.

And the reason I own't be asking my friend if she still wants to sell it. We bought the 16-85, we like it. We don't shoot ƒ4 for landscape where it is mostly used. And it slightly overlaps with the DA 55-300 PLM, reducing the need for lens changes. That in away makes the 16-45 a lens without a purpose, or a lens who's time has passed.

**UncleVanya** · 09-03-2021, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by photogem

Then you'll going to notice a huge step forward when using the DA16-45.
The SMC DA18-50 to me felt inferior to the DA18-55II or WR in its range. Just quiet DC Motor and pretty light.... but quite a diameter.

Not my experience. But I never had the 18-55 WR version.

08-30-2021, 11:45 PM - 1 Like	#17
photogem Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 3,519	The DA16-45, if in really good condition, is an excellent lens. From the K5 onwards but particular with the K3 and then KP and K70 it could show its potential. I know a very good photographer using as zooms mainly two on his K70: DA55-300PLM and DA16-45. I myself have a good aligned sample and can highly recommend it. Test charts don't interest me, nor that silly test on dpreview which is useless as useless can be! I need to have a lens on my camera and walk around with it for a few days, then I know much more about it. It is very true, a wobbly version can be terrible. But do to the way it is built it does have naturally some wobble. It was one of the most special designed and calculated lenses for APS-C, the designer knew a lot about it. I recall a conversation I had with one of the best Pentax lensspecialists and repairers in USA, we had a conversation about the FA31ltd. and its design with floated elements. He explained to me why the FA31ltd. is so difficult to adjust/align. He told me then that the DA16-45 is of a similar design and if correct aligned, is one of the best zooms Pentax ever built. That made me buy a few, I selected two of the best, the others I sold again. If one ever would find one NOS (New Old Stock, sometimes they appear on ebay sold from Japan) then that might be the road to go. Last edited by photogem; 08-31-2021 at 11:04 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: DA and HD DA Primes: DA 50 1.8, DA XS 40mm, HD DA 35mm, DA 21mm, HD DA 15mm	Amarony	Sold Items	8	02-20-2019 06:21 AM
HD 16-85 vs 55-300 PLM, DA* 50-135, M28/2 & M50/1.4 : IQ/Sharpness	azath	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	08-29-2018 01:38 AM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs.......	Steelski	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Sharpness, Fine Sharpness, Extra Sharpness	Taviali	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	03-31-2012 12:56 PM
k-7 sharpness / fine sharpness / fine sharpness 2	mattdm	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	12-12-2010 08:10 AM

08-30-2021, 11:16 AM - 1 Like	#16
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	That 16-20mm range is where the DA 16-45 is very good. When the original DA* 16-50 came out, tests at the time showed the 16-45 was better at 16mm. It holds up OK compared to the DA15 in some categories too. But it is also where the barrel is extended. I would buy one only if I could check out barrel wobble and return if needed. It needs a lot of supporting lenses because the long end isn't as good and not very long. That's when the DA 16-85 is a better idea.

09-01-2021, 06:54 AM	#18
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Originally posted by photogem That made me buy a few, I selected two of the best, the others I sold again. Since you had a few, how much variation was there between them? A lot? A little?

09-01-2021, 08:21 AM	#19
photogem Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 3,519	Originally posted by Kozlok Since you had a few, how much variation was there between them? A lot? A little? Little actually!

09-01-2021, 08:24 AM	#20
photogem Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 3,519	Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II Originally posted by Ronald Oakes For some reason it seems to me "LOTS" of images from the DA 16-45 online are speaking to me! Not so much with the 16-85..... I keep telling myself it's nothing more than "gear acquisition syndrome" but then I look at the pictures again and it sure seems the other way around LOL You had it in the film days as well, but then you probably turned the negative over by accident . The DA 16-45 is not from the film days!

09-01-2021, 12:12 PM	#21
AfterPentax Mark II Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2021 Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by photogem The DA 16-45 is not from the film days! You're kidding!

09-01-2021, 12:31 PM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II You're kidding! He's not. No DA lenses were film lenses, that would be FA lenses. SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm F4 Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

09-01-2021, 02:33 PM	#23
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by AfterPentax Mark II You're kidding! Of course it's not a film era lens, since it's not even a full frame lens (but useable from about 21mm to 45mm on film). Regarding the CA - yes it's there. It's there with my SMC DA*16-50mm f/2.8 as well. If anything, my 16-45 has a bit less. But it only showed up in what, about 1% of my shots. And when it does I corrected it and it wasn't a big deal.

09-01-2021, 02:44 PM	#24
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ChristianRock Of course it's not a film era lens, since it's not even a full frame lens (but useable from about 21mm to 45mm on film). Regarding the CA - yes it's there. It's there with my SMC DA*16-50mm f/2.8 as well. If anything, my 16-45 has a bit less. But it only showed up in what, about 1% of my shots. And when it does I corrected it and it wasn't a big deal. Always new information to ponder. Because I sort of panned it myself, I always noticed when it's been discussed, and after years of paying attention I'm almost certain I should have picked it up when I could have. Sometimes you look for bias confirmation, and it's just not there.

09-01-2021, 03:03 PM - 1 Like	#25
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by normhead Always new information to ponder. Because I sort of panned it myself, I always noticed when it's been discussed, and after years of paying attention I'm almost certain I should have picked it up when I could have. Sometimes you look for bias confirmation, and it's just not there. Well... I think a lens can be better than its weakest link - if we are talking chains, sure, the weakest link determines the strength of the whole chain, but this isn't the case here. To give an example - I quite like my HD DA 18-50mm f/4-5-6 DC WR RE. It's almost CA free, though I have seen it at the extreme corners. It's quite well corrected in almost every way, and the images are sharp, contrasty and nicely saturated from wide open. But when I look at pictures taken with the DA 16-45, they just look a little bit better. I'll keep using the 18-50 for convenience (hardly much bigger than my DA 21 when retracted - and it's lighter, WR, and DC), and I won't get a new DA 16-45 now that this one's "decentered unless straightened" (barrel wobble is so bad I have to hold the barrel straight to get sharp pictures at 16mm). I also have a DA*16-50 since last year as my larger normal zoom - better than the 16-45 but not by that much, and the 16-45 probably has the edge on corner sharpness. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 18-50 should be a better lens according to testing data, as its weakest link is better. But in the sum of it all, the 16-45 I think is a bit better. My son - DA 16-45 DA 16-45, also on our cruise a couple years ago. HD DA 18-50... certainly good enough for snaps at the beach. Obviously I don't have any HD DA 16-85mm pictures...

09-01-2021, 04:15 PM	#26
Ronald Oakes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,582 Original Poster	I'm also a fan of the DA 18-50.....mine however is the SMC version , not the latest HD DA version.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-03-2021, 04:11 AM	#27
photogem Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 3,519	Originally posted by Ronald Oakes I'm also a fan of the DA 18-50.....mine however is the SMC version , not the latest HD DA version. Then you'll going to notice a huge step forward when using the DA16-45. The SMC DA18-50 to me felt inferior to the DA18-55II or WR in its range. Just quiet DC Motor and pretty light.... but quite a diameter.

09-03-2021, 07:57 AM	#28
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,887	I haven't used the 16-45 but have read very mixed reviews. The 16-85mm has become my landscape lens of choice, both at the wide and telephoto ends, due to it's superb sharpness, colours and contrast. I think that's saying a lot given that I really prefer primes to zooms most of the time.

09-03-2021, 08:11 AM	#29
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I haven't used the 16-45 but have read very mixed reviews. The 16-85mm has become my landscape lens of choice, both at the wide and telephoto ends, due to it's superb sharpness, colours and contrast. I think that's saying a lot given that I really prefer primes to zooms most of the time. And the reason I own't be asking my friend if she still wants to sell it. We bought the 16-85, we like it. We don't shoot ƒ4 for landscape where it is mostly used. And it slightly overlaps with the DA 55-300 PLM, reducing the need for lens changes. That in away makes the 16-45 a lens without a purpose, or a lens who's time has passed.

09-03-2021, 08:36 AM	#30
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,397	Originally posted by photogem Then you'll going to notice a huge step forward when using the DA16-45. The SMC DA18-50 to me felt inferior to the DA18-55II or WR in its range. Just quiet DC Motor and pretty light.... but quite a diameter. Not my experience. But I never had the 18-55 WR version.