Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2009, 01:24 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
16-50 or 35mm ltd (kind of)

I am torn.

I am keen to upgrade to the K-7 when it becomes available but I am concerned whether I should wait to check that QA is up to scratch - as with all brand new things. Anyway that's not really directly relevant.

Basically at the moment I have the *ist DS and many lenses. The relevant lenses I guess are the DA 16-45 and a Kiron 105mm f/2.8 Macro.

I've been tempted by both the 16-50 and the 35mm ltd for a while now. I got the DA 16-45 as an upgrade for my 18-55 but if I am going to get the K-7 the 16-50 becomes tempting because of its SDM and weathersealing. But I take a lot of close up shots when I wander around and so the 35mm is tempting because of its smaller size, cost and focusing distance. I could part exchange the 16-45 for about 130 if I went with the 16-50.

Normally these two lenses don't really overlap but if I am going to get the K-7 I can't really justify both of them...

So is the 16-50 noticeably better than the 16-45 in terms of sharpness, micro-contrast and colour? What kind of bokeh difference is there?

I am very conscious of the upcoming (massive) UK price rises!

Thanks!

06-10-2009, 05:55 AM   #2
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 53
I have a 16-50mm and love it. Great lens and the build quality is amazing. The biggest diff you will notice is the SDM motor, focusing is silent. I would get it again.

BUT I also just bought a DA40. Reason: The zoom len's are large, and I wanted to take the camera out and about more often stuffed into my laptop bag. This meant the 16-50mm was out, as its simply too large.

The DA40mm is tiny, and is perfect as a practical alternative. If size is a criteria, then get this over the DA35, as you already have a macro, so there is no benefit to the 35mm. (apart from 5mm I suppose)
06-10-2009, 07:15 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NorrisTudor Quote
I have a 16-50mm and love it. Great lens and the build quality is amazing. The biggest diff you will notice is the SDM motor, focusing is silent. I would get it again.

BUT I also just bought a DA40. Reason: The zoom len's are large, and I wanted to take the camera out and about more often stuffed into my laptop bag. This meant the 16-50mm was out, as its simply too large.

The DA40mm is tiny, and is perfect as a practical alternative. If size is a criteria, then get this over the DA35, as you already have a macro, so there is no benefit to the 35mm. (apart from 5mm I suppose)
I actually have the 43mm Ltd so the 40mm Ltd whilst a wonderful lens doesn't appeal.

The appeal of the 35mm is its useful focal length for general people and places type photography combined with its 1:1 macro. I have a full on macro for dedicated work - especially with bugs etc - but its slightly less convienient to use as its MF and has a huge focus throw. That's great for macro but not great if I am wondering around and see something interesting that isn't a macro subject.

The 16-50 is going to hit 1100 after the price rise. With part exchange I could get it for around 330 - there's an opportunity problem here in that if I don't get it now I'll never be able to afford it. I don't need then lens but it would be nice to own....

I could of course say screw the cost and raid my savings!!

I haven't found many reviews other than the photozone one which isn't massively flattering about the 16-50 in terms of image consistency across the frame.
06-10-2009, 07:19 AM   #4
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 53
as you're in the UK..the best move with the 16-50 is to get it from Chris at SRS...and let them test it first...and then you test on receipt. They will switch it without a comment for another.

(you might want to check when they run out of current stock, as that when the price rise will happen.)

06-10-2009, 07:19 AM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 260
Hi Caat,
There're quite a few discussions 16-45 vs 16-50. General idea was iq is not much better, but you get 2.8 vs 4, SDM and weatherseal.
As for 35: prime ltd is prime ltd. Unfortunately I don't have the 35 but I found that on many occasions I use da40 instead of 16-50. But again it all depends on what you shoot.
Good luck,
06-10-2009, 07:24 AM   #6
Site Supporter
daacon's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alberta,Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,831
I have both. As far as IQ goes I would call it a wash albiet the 35 may be a little sharper if you are pixcel peeking or printing a wall sized poster. The 35 macro ability is nice as well.

That said the 16-50 is on my K20D way more oftern. It offers a range I find very usefull and as mentioned the added SDM and weather sealing allows me to go out in less than ideal conditions which over the winter months here is pretty muhc all the time haha.

I bought the 35ltd to be more of a discrete combo for carrying just the camera and one lens. (and not so much macro's as extreme close ups)
06-10-2009, 09:51 AM   #7
Veteran Member
PrimeObjectif's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 600
I have both the 16-45 and the 16-50. I don't know that there's a huge IQ difference between the two. I think the bokeh is a little more pleasant on the DA*, but that may be because I have that extra stop. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the SDM lenses are supposed to AF faster on the K-7. I don't notice a difference in AF speed between the two lenses on my K20d. I'm going to sell one, and I'm leaning toward the 16-45, b/c of the weather sealing. However, if I didn't get the 16-50 at such a good price, I would not have considered selling my 16-45 for a 16-50.

I have the FA 35mm, and although it's a superb lens, I really wanted a lens that could focus a bit closer, so I recently picked up the 35mm ltd. Without using it much, I can already tell that it gives me more versatility than any of my other primes. I'll probably have the FA 35 on the marketplace soon.

If you can only get either the DA* or the DA ltd., I would go for the limited.
06-10-2009, 05:13 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,290
My vote is for the DA* 16-50. It has the following advantages over the DA 16-45, IQ is close enough to the same as to not matter. These are my reasons for paying the extra.
  • Weather proofing. It rains/snows/hails up here a lot.
  • F/2.8 - it speeds up focusing, and makes the viewfinder brighter
  • 16-50. That 5 mm does not sound like much, but it is huge. It was actually the focal length that tripped the choice more than the other two.
Whichever lens you buy, if the description starts SMC-P you cannot go very far wrong.

06-12-2009, 04:26 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
Original Poster
Thanks to everyone for the very helpful advice.

In the end I have gone for the DA 35mm Ltd for the following reasons:

1). I have the 16-45
2). The 16-50's advantage of weather-sealing whilst nice is in all honesty not likely to get used by me hugely often
3). I will see how much the WR kit lens is with the K-7 if its a small amount I might pick that up with the camera for shooting in the rain
4). The 1 stop advantage is nice but I don't do a huge amount of low-light shooting
5). The limited's normal focal length on APS-C will be nice and its very close focus will enable me to 'simulate' longer focal lengths
6). For actual macro work it provides a different approach to my Kiron - 35mm enable me to get a wider view of small subjects, although the Kiron will be better for hardcore 1:1 work and anything likely to run away
7). I have preordered the K-7 and on balance the benefit from going from *ist DS to K-7 will be greater than 16-45 to 16-50 (by some degree). So putting money towards the K-7 should probably be my priority...
06-12-2009, 06:38 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Buddha Jones's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,591
I have both of the lenses in question and I think you did the right thing considering you have the 16-45mm already. While the 16-50mm is not a macro in the sense of filling up the frame you can get pretty darn close to whatever you are shooting. But with that being said, the DA35LTD is on my camera 90% of the time because of its amazing versatility.
06-12-2009, 10:12 AM   #11
Veteran Member
dugrant153's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,059
I'm with Buddha Jones on this one. The DA35 Limited is an amazingly versatile walk around lens. I find the focal length not too tele but also not too wide either. And the ability to use macro on tap is a huge huge plus. The minimum focusing distance on the DA35 Limited Macro is when the lens actually touches the object! LOL

The DA35 Limited Macro is also smaller and lighter than the DA*16-50. Just something to consider. It (the DA35 Ltd) is also crazy sharp from F2.8.
06-13-2009, 07:03 AM   #12
Veteran Member
PrimeObjectif's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 600
I think you made the right call, caat. You're gonna take some great shots!
06-13-2009, 07:07 AM   #13
Veteran Member
PrimeObjectif's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 600
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
Whichever lens you buy, if the description starts SMC-P you cannot go very far wrong.
Amen!

(ten characters)
06-13-2009, 01:56 PM   #14
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
Original Poster
It arrived this morning. See this thread for its first quick test run:

Day out with my new DA 35mm (and a couple of bigma shots) [imgs]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Thanks again!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, 35mm ltd, da, k-7, k-mount, lenses, ltd, pentax lens, slr lens, upgrade
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody knows what kind is this Rikenon 35mm f/2.8? It is not m42... bbobby Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 10-18-2010 10:05 AM
What do you think about this kind of photography ? netuser Photographic Technique 15 06-23-2009 05:32 AM
A Different Kind of Chipmunk MightyMike Post Your Photos! 7 12-22-2008 05:59 PM
Something kind of different mel Post Your Photos! 19 05-30-2008 07:14 PM
Two of a kind... pog Post Your Photos! 2 12-09-2006 09:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top