[STARHUNTER94]

I am sure the build quality of the 16-50 PLM is top grade but I have the 16-85 and the build quality is really very good for a mostly plastic construction lens. The zoom and focus rings operate smoothly and the lens barrel even fully extended has no wobble on my copy. Sharpness is really good, I cannot see where it is less sharp than any of my primes and I have some sharp primes, including SMC 35 Macro Limited and DFA 100 WR macro. I would certainly recommend the 16-85.

I had read a number of reports of it having issues with being soft on one side all of a sudden or having the focus 'jump' between shots, and then others where people just love it, which is encouraging of course. Sometimes I have a hard time sifting through reviews like that.

Thank you for the recommendation and for taking the time to write to me.

[mikesbike]

Well, I do understand your interest in the new DA* 16-50 f/2.8 as I use my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for many scenes other than fast action. As you pointed out, great for separating subject from background, and when you need a zoom lens for low light shooting, having both WA and tele, this is often the answer.

---------- Post added 03-09-22 at 09:10 PM ----------

Currently I also have an 18-135 that I'm looking to sell

Since you already have this gem, I'd say hang on to it too. Even with my other lenses, there's no way I intend to part with this one. It is too often useful, and delivers fine results when I need its versatility and to avoid lens-changing. Great for event shooting, family gatherings, etc where you can go for group shots and then zoom right in for an individual.

[tibbitts]

The new 16-50 wouldn't even work on my K-5 (lacking KAF4 support), but I mostly prefer my 17-50 Sigma to the 16-85. If you can find an inexpensive used Sigma I wouldn't hesitate to try that. I can't say much for viewfinder PDAF but it's reliable for live view CDAF on my cameras.

[STARHUNTER94]

The new 16-50 wouldn't even work on my K-5 (lacking KAF4 support), but I mostly prefer my 17-50 Sigma to the 16-85. If you can find an inexpensive used Sigma I wouldn't hesitate to try that. I can't say much for viewfinder PDAF but it's reliable for live view CDAF on my cameras.

Can't say I've ever seen one around locally in a K-mount unfortunately as originally I was thinking about this for the same FL and a 'step up' in terms of IQ etc. Thanks for the insight no less into the AF performance though that's interesting.

---------- Post added 03-10-22 at 06:48 AM ----------

Well, I do understand your interest in the new DA* 16-50 f/2.8 as I use my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for many scenes other than fast action. As you pointed out, great for separating subject from background, and when you need a zoom lens for low light shooting, having both WA and tele, this is often the answer.

---------- Post added 03-09-22 at 09:10 PM ----------



Since you already have this gem, I'd say hang on to it too. Even with my other lenses, there's no way I intend to part with this one. It is too often useful, and delivers fine results when I need its versatility and to avoid lens-changing. Great for event shooting, family gatherings, etc where you can go for group shots and then zoom right in for an individual.

It certainly is hard to say goodbye to that lens. I've traveled with it and it sure is useful. In an attempt to keep my lens count low and fund new lenses I was thinking I'd be able to get away with only having the 16-50 and 55-300 PLM for almost every scene I could come up with, selling the 18-135 in the process. You're making me ask hard questions to myself on what I value haha (which is good)!

[UncleVanya]

It certainly is hard to say goodbye to that lens. I've traveled with it and it sure is useful. In an attempt to keep my lens count low and fund new lenses I was thinking I'd be able to get away with only having the 16-50 and 55-300 PLM for almost every scene I could come up with, selling the 18-135 in the process. You're making me ask hard questions to myself on what I value haha (which is good)!

I own the older 16-50, the 20-40, both 18-50 (hd and smc) and the 18-135. The 18-135 is a good walk around one lens option. The 20-40 pairs well with my 55-300 PLM as a lighter kit. I also put the 10-17 in that kit if possible.

[STARHUNTER94]

I own the older 16-50, the 20-40, both 18-50 (hd and smc) and the 18-135. The 18-135 is a good walk around one lens option. The 20-40 pairs well with my 55-300 PLM as a lighter kit. I also put the 10-17 in that kit if possible.

When traveling, do you find yourself wishing for the 16-50 for the wide end sometimes? 4mm on the wide end can change things up a fair amount (versus just walking a certain distance to reframe one's self I would imagine).

[UncleVanya]

When traveling, do you find yourself wishing for the 16-50 for the wide end sometimes? 4mm on the wide end can change things up a fair amount (versus just walking a certain distance to reframe one's self I would imagine).

That’s why the 10-17 is along. Lol. The 17 end is quite wide but not very fishy. Alternatively I bring my DA 15.

If I expect a lot of wide shots the 11-18 or 12-24 may make the grade. But I have too many lenses.

[STARHUNTER94]

That’s why the 10-17 is along. Lol. The 17 end is quite wide but not very fishy. Alternatively I bring my DA 15.

If I expect a lot of wide shots the 11-18 or 12-24 may make the grade. But I have too many lenses.

Haha that makes sense though. And yes, hence my goal of having 3 or so lenses total in my life (we'll see how long THAT lasts).

[mikesbike]

You're making me ask hard questions to myself on what I value haha (which is good)!

Being able to change lenses on the camera is a main reason for using a camera with this capability. Different situations and subject matter dictate which will be the best tool to choose for the occasion.

[STARHUNTER94]

Being able to change lenses on the camera is a main reason for using a camera with this capability. Different situations and subject matter dictate which will be the best tool to choose for the occasion.

That's a good point. I think I've never thought this way outside of "which zoom range do I need" so I've always had 1-2 lenses in my bag. Short and Long. I'm sure this is because I need to grow as a photographer and move my legs more and look at the scene before firing away.

[mikesbike]

That's a good point. I think I've never thought this way outside of "which zoom range do I need" so I've always had 1-2 lenses in my bag. Short and Long. I'm sure this is because I need to grow as a photographer and move my legs more and look at the scene before firing away.

This is absolutely true. There are different approaches according also to needs where one can say a versatile setup is the way to go. What you are describing here would entail using a prime lens or two. If the interest is a prime lens as a walk-around lens, then here again versatile would come to mind. A versatile FL is one that would be suitable for many conditions one might happen upon. Usually, the preference is for wide angle for general use, which means not too wide. But if wishing to do more singling out of subjects from the scene, or a slight crop effect, or where much of the scene will be at some distance away, then a normal lens or short tele would be the ticket. Traditionally, the normal, all purpose prime lens for 35mm film photography has been the fast 50mm. But with APS-C the change in angle of view converts the fast 50mm to better serve other uses, such as being a very good portrait lens choice. This means a great savings over getting a lens yielding the same usage for 35mm film or a full-frame DSLR. That would be a 77 to 85mm f/1.8 which would be quite costly. The inexpensive DA 50mm f/1.8 is a good choice here. Also great for low light uses, due to its f/1.8 aperture, and good performance even wide open. Such a lens could blur background to make a subject stand out from it much better than the 50mm end of your kit lens, and can deliver 8 times the shutter speed under the same conditions, not to mention better image quality.

Other situation where versatility is important, this time going towards zoom lenses, are certain events such as a garden party or a graduation, for example. The DA 18-135mm is perfect for these kinds of scenarios. You can get a lot of good results with a variety of compositions while not needing to move much from your position, and/or can catch some good candids, altering framing as needed. Of course, this would also be a great choice if going around with a group, where changing lenses would cause delay and inconvenience to others and should be avoided.

[STARHUNTER94]

Lots of good information all around in this discussion, thank you!

[mikesbike]

As to greater wide angle, although I have ultra-wide zoom lenses for APS-C and for my FF K-1 II, in the case of APS-C when wanting to take another main lens other than a wide angle zoom, my remarkably small DA 15mm Ltd lives in my holster-type belt-loop/shoulder strap case- in the front accessary pocket with a little protective sheet of small bubble wrap! And there's still room for a spare battery and more! It will complement many choices of lens that I currently have on the camera, and is there when needed. It is also a great performer. That is another angle as to what versatility means. It is so small and light, it just stays there. When dealing with wide angle, the wider you go the more each mm means. There is quite a difference between the 18mm on the widest end of a zoom lens and going down to 15mm. In the case of my having taken my excellent, very compact DA 20-40mm Ltd for its compact carrying, that difference is yet greater.

[STARHUNTER94]

As to greater wide angle, although I have ultra-wide zoom lenses for APS-C and for my FF K-1 II, in the case of APS-C when wanting to take another main lens other than a wide angle zoom, my remarkably small DA 15mm Ltd lives in my holster-type belt-loop/shoulder strap case- in the front accessary pocket with a little protective sheet of small bubble wrap! And there's still room for a spare battery and more! It will complement many choices of lens that I currently have on the camera, and is there when needed. It is also a great performer. That is another angle as to what versatility means. It is so small and light, it just stays there. When dealing with wide angle, the wider you go the more each mm means. There is quite a difference between the 18mm on the widest end of a zoom lens and going down to 15mm. In the case of my having taken my excellent, very compact DA 20-40mm Ltd for its compact carrying, that difference is yet greater.

I can definitely see the appeal in terms of easy access and that these two lenses would be fairly light (60% of the weight total to something like the 16-50 PLM alone, and $370 CAD cheaper than the new PLM before taxes). Not to mention size, as you say. Thanks for the feedback.