[Mbaez]

is there a new 16-85 PLM out ?

Typo. 16-50

[Levus]

The 12-24 is definitely a great lens however it's very rare where i live in used condition so it's hard to get.

I think it would be a good choice to buy an used, but fully functional and working 16-50 sdm again. That is a very good lens and relatively cheap.
The 16-85 is much more pricey as it's a very popular lens......BUT i was able to test it and i think it's an overhyped lens. A good 16-50 sdm has much better image quality. At least in my opinion it's a really stunning lens. Bright, sharp and has stunning colors out of the box, without any editing.

Best Regards,
Levente

[estost]

The 12-24 is definitely a great lens however it's very rare where i live in used condition so it's hard to get.

I think it would be a good choice to buy an used, but fully functional and working 16-50 sdm again. That is a very good lens and relatively cheap.
The 16-85 is much more pricey as it's a very popular lens......BUT i was able to test it and i think it's an overhyped lens. A good 16-50 sdm has much better image quality. At least in my opinion it's a really stunning lens. Bright, sharp and has stunning colors out of the box, without any editing.

Best Regards,
Levente

Used the 12-24 myself for a couple of years. While it is very good at the wide end, 12-15 mm, it absolutely sucks at the long end, 20-24 mm. Apart from that, who wants to work with a 4/24 at that size and weight? There was a reason why they came up with the 11-18, which is said to have a much more consistent IQ and starts at 2.8.

When it comes to travel, get a set of limited pancakes instead of honking around those can-size zooms. It also helps to keep low profile while photographing.

[UncleVanya]

Used the 12-24 myself for a couple of years. While it is very good at the wide end, 12-15 mm, it absolutely sucks at the long end, 20-24 mm. Apart from that, who wants to work with a 4/24 at that size and weight? There was a reason why they came up with the 11-18, which is said to have a much more consistent IQ and starts at 2.8.

When it comes to travel, get a set of limited pancakes instead of honking around those can-size zooms. It also helps to keep low profile while photographing.

I’ve never noticed poor results at 20-24mm. I even used it on my Sony A7R3 on a manual adapter. I found it had a lot more geometric distortion than I expected but otherwise seemed good.

[MikeStnly]

Here is an interesting thought - use the 1.4x T.C. - I just read that I can use it on the 77mm Limited. On the K-3iii that gives me a very small 161.7 mm telephoto.

I'm going on a trip by air at the end of March and was just bringing three limited primes - 15mm, 31mm and 77mm. I would like a long lens like the DA*300mm because there will be birds where I am going that I can't at home, but I don't want to carry it.

The T.C. won't work on the 15mm, but with my crop sensor I can in effect add two more lenses. The 31 will double as a 65mm and the 77 as a 161.7mm. If I throw in my 40mm Limited, I would also have an 84mm. So four small lenses and the converter - letting me cover from 15mm to almost 200mm. That should cover all my needs in a very light package.

[RICHARD L.]

Concerning the DA 12-24 mm f/4 zoom :

12 mm

Used the 12-24 myself for a couple of years. While it is very good at the wide end, 12-15 mm, it absolutely sucks at the long end, 20-24 mm.

My copy performs superbly at all focal lengths, whether it be at 12 or 24 mm.

[Canada_Rockies]

My DA 12-24 has no problems at any focal length, close up or distant on my K3. Indoors at about 1 m.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[JensE]

When it comes to travel, get a set of limited pancakes instead of honking around those can-size zooms. It also helps to keep low profile while photographing.

That works well when I travel alone, like on days off on business trips. Usually it doesn't with family, when I need to cut down on the time for lens changes. Sometimes, sticking to one normal to wide prime works well though.

Somewhat off-topic: My compact travel choice would not fit well for the original request, but I have recently discussed the limitations, and merits of the 18-135mm for family trips. I usually pack compact primes, such as the FA35 in addition for low light situations.

[tibbitts]

Used the 12-24 myself for a couple of years. While it is very good at the wide end, 12-15 mm, it absolutely sucks at the long end, 20-24 mm. Apart from that, who wants to work with a 4/24 at that size and weight? There was a reason why they came up with the 11-18, which is said to have a much more consistent IQ and starts at 2.8.

When it comes to travel, get a set of limited pancakes instead of honking around those can-size zooms. It also helps to keep low profile while photographing.

The 11-18 is a different class of lens than the 12-24mm. Many manufacturers provide a choice of f2.8 or f4 in similar-range lenses, and of course in this case they were developed in different eras as well. I don't have personal experience with the 11-18mm but with lenses in general I wouldn't assume a specific copy has more consistent IQ unless I'd sampled many of the same model. I'm not convinced there's always a link between price and quality control, partly because even if there is, it might be at least partly offset by more complex construction being more sensitive to slight variations in manufacturing.

You really have to define "travel", because even without family being in the picture, in many common travel environments you're simply forced to move too fast, encountering unexpected and fast-transitioning subjects, or in hostile environments where you don't want to change lenses. Plus some of those pancakes don't appear to be known for breathtaking image quality.

---------- Post added 02-11-2022 at 01:06 PM ----------

The 12-24 is definitely a great lens however it's very rare where i live in used condition so it's hard to get.

I think it would be a good choice to buy an used, but fully functional and working 16-50 sdm again. That is a very good lens and relatively cheap.
The 16-85 is much more pricey as it's a very popular lens......BUT i was able to test it and i think it's an overhyped lens. A good 16-50 sdm has much better image quality. At least in my opinion it's a really stunning lens. Bright, sharp and has stunning colors out of the box, without any editing.

Best Regards,
Levente

My experience with multiple (5?) copies of the 16-85 is that quality control is lacking, so while some copies might seem "overhyped", others might not be. I'm surprised you're happy with your 16-50 SDM, which certainly doesn't have a stellar reputation for image quality, but I don't have personal experience with it. Maybe you went through dozens of copies and managed to find, as you say, "a good 16-50 sdm." I do have the 17-50mm Sigma and prefer it overall to the 16-85 that I also own, although obviously it lacks somewhat in range vs. the 16-85mm. Probably the 16-50 PLM is better but of course doesn't function fully on my older bodies.

[estost]

I’ve never noticed poor results at 20-24mm. I even used it on my Sony A7R3 on a manual adapter. I found it had a lot more geometric distortion than I expected but otherwise seemed good.

My experience is in line with this old review on Optical Limits: Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL ED [IF] - Review / Test Report

"The center quality decreases slightly towards the long end of the zoom range. At 24mm it is advisable tostop down a little to lift the contrast level and to get a little extra kick in terms of resolution."

Using the lens on a K3 with 24 MP surely didn't help Taking the FA 2/24 instead was a real relief. BTW, the 2/24 is a great lens on APS-C, much more satisfying than of FF, just stop it down to 2,4 instead of wide open. Then at 5.6 it is unbeatable. Really profits from the sweat spot effect.


Why did you put that 12-24 on a Sony a7RIII? It is very much not FF compatible, I think even at 24 mm there was trouble when I tried it on my MZ-S.

---------- Post added 02-12-22 at 12:16 PM ----------

Here is an interesting thought - use the 1.4x T.C. - I just read that I can use it on the 77mm Limited. On the K-3iii that gives me a very small 161.7 mm telephoto.

I'm going on a trip by air at the end of March and was just bringing three limited primes - 15mm, 31mm and 77mm. I would like a long lens like the DA*300mm because there will be birds where I am going that I can't at home, but I don't want to carry it.

The T.C. won't work on the 15mm, but with my crop sensor I can in effect add two more lenses. The 31 will double as a 65mm and the 77 as a 161.7mm. If I throw in my 40mm Limited, I would also have an 84mm. So four small lenses and the converter - letting me cover from 15mm to almost 200mm. That should cover all my needs in a very light package.

Rather don't use a TC with wide angle lenses. With the 77mm is might be OK, but generally speaking you will more often than not get better IQ by just cropping the picture afterwards. With 26 MP at your disposal this will rarely be a problem.

If you want a really great 200mm equivalent for APS-C, get the old FA 2.8/135. A little hard to find, but absolutely worth it. Tiny in size also because of its retractive hood, sharp as hell wide open, not extending due to its IF, great bokeh and colours. They should reissue that lens in a modernized version!

[UncleVanya]

My experience is in line with this old review on Optical Limits: Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL ED [IF] - Review / Test Report

"The center quality decreases slightly towards the long end of the zoom range. At 24mm it is advisable tostop down a little to lift the contrast level and to get a little extra kick in terms of resolution."

That’s hardly bad performance. Slightly and a little are very different from what I got your impression was.

Using the lens on a K3 with 24 MP surely didn't help Taking the FA 2/24 instead was a real relief. BTW, the 2/24 is a great lens on APS-C, much more satisfying than of FF, just stop it down to 2,4 instead of wide open. Then at 5.6 it is unbeatable. Really profits from the sweat spot effect.

Comparing a DA zoom to a prime? Ok - not surprising that you liked the prime better particularly that one.

Why did you put that 12-24 on a Sony a7RIII? It is very much not FF compatible, I think even at 24 mm there was trouble when I tried it on my MZ-S.

Why not? At the time I had the 24-105 on loan. I didn’t know what the monster adapter ship dates would be and I had read the 12-24 was partly ff capable. I tried it on my pz-1 also and it seemed rational from more than 20-24mm. Clearly our standards differ as I saw nothing wrong with it. I’ve also used the da 10-17 at 17mm on my Sony.

[MikeStnly]

If you want a really great 200mm equivalent for APS-C, get the old FA 2.8/135. A little hard to find, but absolutely worth it. Tiny in size also because of its retractive hood, sharp as hell wide open, not extending due to its IF, great bokeh and colours. They should reissue that lens in a modernized version!

I do have a Takumar 2.5/135. - It takes a wonderful photo, but is a bit awkward to remove being a screw mount. The size though is not much bigger than the 77mm with the converter. So thank you, I will look around for an FA 135. Likely I would only use the TC on the 77 just for the odd unusual bird that I don't see at home. :-)

[Urnamaster13]

After reading the quality control issues, i am confused now whether to get the 16-85 or not. For a walkaround lens.

or should i save that money for 16-50 PLM ?

[Gary H Perth]

After reading the quality control issues, i am confused now whether to get the 16-85 or not. For a walkaround lens.

or should i save that money for 16-50 PLM ?

For a great example of the work that the 16-85 can deliver, go back up this thread to Timb64's post and look at his albums. His Asia trip is what convinced me to buy the 16-85, and use it for my trip to Vietnam in Feb 2020. For that purpose, it's brilliant.

[RICHARD L.]

You can hardly find a better lens than this HD DA 16-85 mm ED zoom.