[fractal]

I'm own the DA 18-250mm and am getting tired of back focus issues and low IQ at the 18mm end. I have come to figure I rarely use the long end of the 18-250 and the image deteriorates too much after 200mm. From what I have seen, the 16-45 produces great images at the lower end, which is, essentially what I am after.

Can anyone, who owns both lenses, comment on my decision? Or even pros switching to the 16-45, considering I don't use the long end of my 18-250 that much..

Thanks

[dgaies]

I used to own a 18-250 and currently own the 16-45 (actually sold the first copy I owned, regretted it and purchased a 2nd copy).

I found the IQ of the 18-250 to be pretty decent considering its size and range. That being said, I believe the 16-45 puts out a much better image. If you're mostly concerned with the lower end, I would recommend the 16-45. If you want to cover yourself, you could probably pickup an inexpensive 50-200 to go with the 16-45. The 50-200 is very small and I personally found the IQ to be pretty decent (again, for the price/size). I don't know what prices on used lenses are like where you are, but you might be able to sell your 18-250 (~350) and use the funds to pick up both the 16-45 (~250) and 50-200 (~100).

I'm own the DA 18-250mm and am getting tired of back focus issues and low IQ at the 18mm end. I have come to figure I rarely use the long end of the 18-250 and the image deteriorates too much after 200mm. From what I have seen, the 16-45 produces great images at the lower end, which is, essentially what I am after.

Can anyone, who owns both lenses, comment on my decision? Or even pros switching to the 16-45, considering I don't use the long end of my 18-250 that much..

Thanks

[sterretje]

One comment: if you have backfocus issues, they might not be gone when you buy another lens.

[Biro]

I own both lenses and find the IQ from the 18-250 to be quite good after taking into consideration what it is. The only thing I notice is a bit of barrel distortion at 18mm. Easily corrected in PP and gone by 20mm anyway. I have no backfocusing problems with it and regard it as my vacation lens. I also use it in any situation where I want to use the DSLR but can't change lenses or want to keep the kit small - like at an MLB stadium.

That said, if you're interested in the short end, the 16-45 will make you much happier. Sharpness, contrast and color are all excellent - although quality falls off a bit as you get close to 45mm. Shop around... this lens apparently has just gone out of production but is still readily available. I picked one up at Willoughby's in NYC for U.S. $300 - new with warranty - only a few months ago. I realize Oz is a long way off... but it's possible deals can be found.

[audiobomber]

I have a 16-45 and 18-250. The 16-45 is wider and sharper at the wide end, with better colour & contrast, far less vignetting and lower distortion. These advantages are not obvious in every photo but sometimes they matter.

I don't have a backfocussing problem with my DA 18-250.

[EsBee]

I also have both these lenses (sold my first 16-45 but recently got another one). While I consider the 16-45 a specialist for landscape photography, I love the super tele for its versatility, and for its better than good IQ between 28mm and 210mm, with no focusing issues noticed so far.

[fractal]

Ok.. thanks for the tips guys.

dgaies, unfortunately the used lens/camera stores are few & far between here.

Currently i'm looking at a brand new 16-45 on ebay shipped for under $300 US. Seems quite a good deal.

[Biro]

Yes, I'd say $300 or less is a very good deal on a brand-new example of the 16-45. I say go for it. Good luck and let us know how it works out.

[fractal]

Yes, I'd say $300 or less is a very good deal on a brand-new example of the 16-45. I say go for it. Good luck and let us know how it works out.

Will do. Thanks.