[matam]

sorry for the intromission, but i've a slight dilemma, and one of the candidates it's the da 16-45.

I'm considering now a bunch of lens, i can found all of them new at around 300€:
Sigma Ex 28-70 f2.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Pentax Da 16-45 f4

And the last candidate is a used lens a Tokina Af270 28-70 f2.8 (i think i can cut the price down to 200€ for this one).

First, if i think about it the difference between 70mm and 50mm can be achieved with a crop while it's impossible to recover the differences between 16/17mm and 28mm.

Second, with the 16-45/17-50 i would sell my kit-lens.

Third, only the 28-70/75 are FF lens (thinking @ a possible FF body by pentax)

Last, while f2.8 is a must for the 28-70/75, f4 it's enough for the 16-45/17-50 (with this i mean the stop differences isn't decisive, the 1mm differences it' s more appealing to me)

[Pentaxor]

"if you have a "good" copy of the kit lens, $300 to too much for the extra 2mm and no real increase in speed, and only a slight bump in IQ."

are you suggesting that the 18-55 have some QC issues? because as far as the statistics goes, the general concession is pretty consistent that the 18-55 is a good lens but certainly not better or at par with the 16-45. regardless if there are copy variations. so how many of those good copies are there in 10 lenses? again, consistency in IQ, not QC issue nor luck of the draw copy variation.

although the 18-55 has quite a cult following from some members, it cannot be considered as a true basis for comparison since most of those members haven't really tried nor owned both lenses to see the difference. and as far as the discussions are concerned, if indeed the kitlens is really slightly at par with the 16-45, we would had seen a lot of disgruntled 16-45 owners selling their copy in favor of the kitlens. I wouldn't say they own the 16-45 exclusively due to the 2mm wide advantage, but also has to do with IQ advantage as well.

it would be interesting to see some samples of such slight difference in IQ of both lenses, if indeed it is slight or not. like shots taken at infinity. subjects or architectures of relative distance, checking the borders and corners, as well as the contrast and details.

as far as the pricing goes, I think Pentax and some of the stores are going back to their insane ways again. last January-February, the lenses cost at around $300, which is pretty acceptable to a step up lens. I'm glad some owners are selling their used copies for $200-$250 bucks. although I agree with you that a Tamron or Sigma would be a better investment if the price of the 16-45 comes close to $500.

[Michaelina2]

I'd get the DA 40 Limited.

You will dazzle your friends and will never ever wonder if "that pic" could have been better. It's the lens for a life time. You are being given the chance to have the best, why settle for less?

[flippedgazelle]

are you suggesting that the 18-55 have some QC issues? because as far as the statistics goes, the general concession is pretty consistent that the 18-55 is a good lens but certainly not better or at par with the 16-45. regardless if there are copy variations. so how many of those good copies are there in 10 lenses? again, consistency in IQ, not QC issue nor luck of the draw copy variation.

I've had 2 DA L 18-55 lenses that demonstrated different levels of sharpness, particularly at the long end.

I don't think at any point I said that the kit lens on "at par" with the 16-45.

My position on this, succinctly: if you have a good copy of the kit lens (DA L, AL II, WR) the value proposition of the 16-45 isn't that great. You get a fairly small boost in IQ, wider at the wide end, and similar speed. IMO, $400 (new) is a lot to spend for that kind of "upgrade". Here's my caveat: if you often shoot very wide, the superior edge-to-edge sharpness of the 16-45 may be worth it.

[rustynail925]

I think the Tamron 17-50 is a better uprgade for the constant 2.8 and better IQ

another alternative is if you value the wide end the sigma 10-20 will make a big difference
and you can get a DA35 / FA35 and a telephoto like a DA70

[EsBee]

Going back to the original question, just go with the 16-45, especially at the deal you mentioned.

In my opinion, this lens is just a tiny bit less in the overall quality of images it produces than the best lens there is for Pentax in that focal length, the 16-50.

[Urkeldaedalus]

The DA16-45 is an excellent first lens to start out with. You will get a real idea of what it can do and what it can't on your camera. Then, if you're unable to take certain photos you want with it, you can fill in with other lenses. I also agree that the DA40 f/2.8 would be good if you want to start out with a prime lens. You could also look at the FA50 f/1.4 or FA50 f/1.7. There are also some good manual focus lenses available for less than $250. Sigma and Tamron also have some good options at that range or for a little bit more.

A few sample photos from me when I had the DA16-45:

[builttospill]

I've owned a few lenses in my time, although I have never been able to try the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma's 17-70, and I have owned the DA 17-70, DA 18-55 and I currently own the DA 16-45.

I absolutely loved the range of the 17-70 and the lens took incredible pictures. After Pentax replaced the SDM motor due to failure I sold the lens (the buyer knew it had just come back from CRIS) and won't buy another SDM lens until Pentax redesigns it. I considered Sigma's 17-70 as a replacement but not having a consistent aperture changed my mind.

I purchased a used 16-45 on the forum here and have been pretty happy with the lens. After using the 17-70 and 16-45 I'd never use the kit 18-55 again. Not that I'm complaining about it, because it's not too bad of a lens, the others are just so much better.

My suggestion is to get a good deal on a used 16-45 and then plan your next purchase for the 40 Limited. (I've also owned the 40, and sold it because although it was a really nice lens, it didn't compare to my old friend, the 43 Limited.)

[Just1MoreDave]

...Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the 16-45 is a bad lens at all. My issue is that @ $400 it does not represent a good value when compared with the kit lens. I just looked at Adorama, and they have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR for $459. That's the best value of all the lenses being bandied about in this thread!

That is how I felt about the DA 16-45 for years, so I didn't buy one. My kit lens is fine, and I have a lot of great lenses from 24 to 55mm. The only problem was continuing to see great images from the lens. But the new price has been less than $300 at times, and some used lenses selling for $200. Prodigital2000 has a few for $350 right now. That alters the value equation considerably.

Even at $350-$400, you can't get a cheaper new lens that starts at 16mm. It is dismissable as "only 2mm" on paper but a considerable, usable improvement in use. The lens is also really good at 16mm - some tests say better, some equal to the DA* 16-50. If 16mm or "as wide as I can afford on a budget" is a factor, the lens is definitely a value.

Now, put more weight on speed, and the Tamron is definitely competitive. Upgrading to the fastest possible lens in a category is rarely possible for less than 20% more. Say you have a Sigma 10-20 already and the wide end is well-covered, then the Tamron is a much better value than the 16-45.

[Pentaxor]

I've had 2 DA L 18-55 lenses that demonstrated different levels of sharpness, particularly at the long end.

I don't think at any point I said that the kit lens on "at par" with the 16-45.

My position on this, succinctly: if you have a good copy of the kit lens (DA L, AL II, WR) the value proposition of the 16-45 isn't that great. You get a fairly small boost in IQ, wider at the wide end, and similar speed. IMO, $400 (new) is a lot to spend for that kind of "upgrade". Here's my caveat: if you often shoot very wide, the superior edge-to-edge sharpness of the 16-45 may be worth it.

I understand your point, but I would be interested in some samples. having a different or a not so common good copy among the bunch seems to be quite impractical or illogical. I don't expect owners to be returning their 18-55 and say it's not a good lens because it doesn't show a small boost in IQ. but anyways, I would really be interested to see this small difference in IQ between the lenses at varying focal lengths and at the parameters that I mentioned previously.

I do however agree with you with regards to pricing the 16-45.

[Pentaxor]

That is how I felt about the DA 16-45 for years, so I didn't buy one. My kit lens is fine, and I have a lot of great lenses from 24 to 55mm. The only problem was continuing to see great images from the lens.

I also asked about the IQ rendering of the 16-45 against the 18-55. I do agree with you that I see far more great images shot from the 16-45 compared to the 18-55. I did the best that I could with the 18-55 but to no avail, unless I do some real good pp work but still a lil bit weak on the detail level.

I had owned the 18-55 before I was able to try out the 16-45, and I could see the big difference in IQ once I saw the results.

[deadwolfbones]

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the best budget wide-to-normal I've used (I've tried the Pentax 16-45, Pentax 18-55 I & II, and Sigma 17-70).

[pasipasi]

[fearview]

constant aperture. for outdoor use, i dont have any complaint with this lens actually .

.

[deadwolfbones]

fantastic!