16-45mm f4... Let's tempt me!

Shub · 04-21-2010, 06:31 PM

Hey guys!
My sister gave me $200 recently, and I'm expecting $250 from a tax return...
I want to buy photography gear, and the 16-45 f4 is really tempting right now.
The wide angle, how everyone raves about it, and f4 isn't bad either.
Definitely a replacement for the trusty kit lens.

So around the price range of $200 to <$400, what kinda lens can I get? Is this my best bet?

P.S. There's one at a local store fairly near me, for open box, for $299 CAD! I think that's a pretty good deal, right?

jct us101 · 04-21-2010, 06:33 PM

You could get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for about $250 and you might find that lens to be a much better buy. You'd have to buy it used for that price, but new might not be very much more, and it has a 1:2.9 macro on it, which is very tempting, along with the large aperture on the long end, instead of just f/4 throughout the range, not to mention the extra reach too. This is the sharpest lens that I have ever used too, I had it for Canon and I swear it was sharper than my nifty fifty, I never got a not very sharp image that wasn't my fault in taking. If the range was longer, I would still have it now. I definitely recommend this lens and I know that if you get it you won't regret it. Seriously, go and get it.

Shub · 04-21-2010, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

You could get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for about $250 and you might find that lens to be a much better buy. You'd have to buy it used for that price, but new might not be very much more, and it has a 1:2.9 macro on it, which is very tempting, along with the large aperture on the long end, instead of just f/4 throughout the range, not to mention the extra reach too. This is the sharpest lens that I have ever used too, I had it for Canon and I swear it was sharper than my nifty fifty, I never got a not very sharp image that wasn't my fault in taking. If the range was longer, I would still have it now. I definitely recommend this lens and I know that if you get it you won't regret it. Seriously, go and get it.

Wow, quick reply! Gotta love those!

I've also been reading about that lens, are there many for sale about right now? And where could I pick up a new one?

Also, any example pics? I was looking through the 16-45 album, wooh. Enough said.

rustynail925 · 04-21-2010, 06:52 PM

I have a pic of the 16-45 itself to get you started

jct us101 · 04-21-2010, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Shub

Wow, quick reply! Gotta love those!

I've also been reading about that lens, are there many for sale about right now? And where could I pick up a new one?

Also, any example pics? I was looking through the 16-45 album, wooh. Enough said.

Here's a few examples from my own photos.

jct us101 · 04-21-2010, 07:06 PM

You can probably get the lens used from a variety of places such as Fredmiranda.com, although the Pentax mount might not be very common, but the PentaxForums marketplace is going to probably have one soon, there's usually one for sale in there every once in a while when I look. The lens has been replaced overall by a new OS version, so I don't think the original one is still for sale. Another good place to look is KEH.com if you want to get it used, their BGN grade is like everyone else's EX grade too so don't worry about not buying one that has that grade on it.

flippedgazelle · 04-21-2010, 07:11 PM

There's another recent thread about "upgrading" to the 16-45. IMO, 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.

I agree with Cody about the Sigma 17-70. In fact, the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 has in-lens OS (you can decide if SR or OS is better) and HSM, a close-up mode (1:2.7) for pseudo-macro work. It's $449/shipped.

Adorama says it is "temporarily out of stock" of the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, but will let you order it for $369.

flippedgazelle · 04-21-2010, 07:12 PM

Cody, that 3rd pic is great!

jct us101 · 04-21-2010, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by flippedgazelle

Cody, that 3rd pic is great!

Thanks! It's one of my favorites from that lens, just looking at it makes me want to get it again. The last one is my favorite though.

Here's a few helpers for you about the lens.

Sigma | 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens for Pentax | 669109

669109 Sigma 17 - 70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Pentax AF Cameras

audiobomber · 04-21-2010, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

I had it for Canon and I swear it was sharper than my nifty fifty, I never got a not very sharp image that wasn't my fault in taking.

Your 50mm must have been broken. According to Photozone the 17-70 is not quite as sharp as the 16-45mm, and neither touches the FA 50.

audiobomber · 04-21-2010, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by flippedgazelle

There's another recent thread about "upgrading" to the 16-45. IMO, 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.

That thread shows that quite a few owners disagree with you about the relative merits of the 16-45 vs the 18-55. I have both. The 16-45 is sharper, and has much better colour & contrast. I consider the 16-45 faster because it is sharp at f4 and the kit lens is soft unless it's stopped down. Of course at the long end, where it counts, the 16-45 is a stop faster, f4 vs 5.6.

I chose the 16-45 over the Sigma 17-70 because it's slightly sharper, has classic Pentax colours and I was more interested in the wider fov. I have other lenses that cover the portrait range, but if I wanted a standard zoom to go to 70mm I'd choose the DA 17-70.

jct us101 · 04-21-2010, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Your 50mm must have been broken. According to Photozone the 17-70 is not quite as sharp as the 16-45mm, and neither touches the FA 50.

Maybe you shouldn't listen to Photozone? I have the photos to prove it. The Sigma is much sharper corner to corner especially, and although the 50mm has some great image quality, I think that the Sigma that I had was much sharper than it.

imtheguy · 04-21-2010, 08:30 PM

Last but not least in the da16-45's corner, its a constant aperture so that MAY be a real advantage depending on how you use it. I also have the WR version of the kit lens and find different uses for both, even when its not raining.

**Just1MoreDave** · 04-21-2010, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

Maybe you shouldn't listen to Photozone? I have the photos to prove it. The Sigma is much sharper corner to corner especially, and although the 50mm has some great image quality, I think that the Sigma that I had was much sharper than it.

It was a Canon 50mm.

Another alternative to the DA 16-45/4 and Sigma 17-70 is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. You either get an extra stop or a constant aperture, compared to Pentax and Sigma. Its new price is slightly higher, but so close it should be considered.

flippedgazelle · 04-21-2010, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

That thread shows that quite a few owners disagree with you about the relative merits of the 16-45 vs the 18-55. I have both. The 16-45 is sharper, and has much better colour & contrast. I consider the 16-45 faster because it is sharp at f4 and the kit lens is soft unless it's stopped down. Of course at the long end, where it counts, the 16-45 is a stop faster, f4 vs 5.6.

I know. That's why I pointed out that thread - so the OP could view multiple opinions.

There's also plenty of folks who agree with me that the 16-45 is a only small step-up from the 18-55 mk ii, unless you need the extra 2mm on the wide end. To quote my 1st post, "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."

Since when is "the long end, where it counts" applicable to the 16-45? Promoters of the 16-45 always emphasize the wider end. And as far as the 45mm point being a stop faster with the 16-45 than 18-55 mk ii, that is very true, but dial both lenses back just 2 mm and the advantage shrinks to a mere ~ 1/3 stop, f/4 to f/4.5.

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!

04-21-2010, 06:31 PM	#1
Shub Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 163	16-45mm f4... Let's tempt me! Hey guys! My sister gave me $200 recently, and I'm expecting $250 from a tax return... I want to buy photography gear, and the 16-45 f4 is really tempting right now. The wide angle, how everyone raves about it, and f4 isn't bad either. Definitely a replacement for the trusty kit lens. So around the price range of $200 to <$400, what kinda lens can I get? Is this my best bet? P.S. There's one at a local store fairly near me, for open box, for $299 CAD! I think that's a pretty good deal, right?

04-21-2010, 08:21 PM	#11
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by flippedgazelle There's another recent thread about "upgrading" to the 16-45. IMO, 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. That thread shows that quite a few owners disagree with you about the relative merits of the 16-45 vs the 18-55. I have both. The 16-45 is sharper, and has much better colour & contrast. I consider the 16-45 faster because it is sharp at f4 and the kit lens is soft unless it's stopped down. Of course at the long end, where it counts, the 16-45 is a stop faster, f4 vs 5.6. I chose the 16-45 over the Sigma 17-70 because it's slightly sharper, has classic Pentax colours and I was more interested in the wider fov. I have other lenses that cover the portrait range, but if I wanted a standard zoom to go to 70mm I'd choose the DA 17-70. Last edited by audiobomber; 04-21-2010 at 08:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The 16-45mm up close!	Tuner571	Post Your Photos!	4	05-13-2008 01:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: DA 16-45mm f/4	Finn	Sold Items	3	01-05-2008 10:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: DA 16-45mm	Occam	Sold Items	3	10-27-2007 06:18 PM

04-21-2010, 06:33 PM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	You could get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for about $250 and you might find that lens to be a much better buy. You'd have to buy it used for that price, but new might not be very much more, and it has a 1:2.9 macro on it, which is very tempting, along with the large aperture on the long end, instead of just f/4 throughout the range, not to mention the extra reach too. This is the sharpest lens that I have ever used too, I had it for Canon and I swear it was sharper than my nifty fifty, I never got a not very sharp image that wasn't my fault in taking. If the range was longer, I would still have it now. I definitely recommend this lens and I know that if you get it you won't regret it. Seriously, go and get it.

04-21-2010, 06:44 PM	#3
Shub Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 163 Original Poster	Originally posted by jct us101 You could get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for about $250 and you might find that lens to be a much better buy. You'd have to buy it used for that price, but new might not be very much more, and it has a 1:2.9 macro on it, which is very tempting, along with the large aperture on the long end, instead of just f/4 throughout the range, not to mention the extra reach too. This is the sharpest lens that I have ever used too, I had it for Canon and I swear it was sharper than my nifty fifty, I never got a not very sharp image that wasn't my fault in taking. If the range was longer, I would still have it now. I definitely recommend this lens and I know that if you get it you won't regret it. Seriously, go and get it. Wow, quick reply! Gotta love those! I've also been reading about that lens, are there many for sale about right now? And where could I pick up a new one? Also, any example pics? I was looking through the 16-45 album, wooh. Enough said.

04-21-2010, 06:52 PM	#4
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	I have a pic of the 16-45 itself to get you started

04-21-2010, 07:05 PM	#5
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by Shub Wow, quick reply! Gotta love those! I've also been reading about that lens, are there many for sale about right now? And where could I pick up a new one? Also, any example pics? I was looking through the 16-45 album, wooh. Enough said. Here's a few examples from my own photos.

04-21-2010, 07:06 PM	#6
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	You can probably get the lens used from a variety of places such as Fredmiranda.com, although the Pentax mount might not be very common, but the PentaxForums marketplace is going to probably have one soon, there's usually one for sale in there every once in a while when I look. The lens has been replaced overall by a new OS version, so I don't think the original one is still for sale. Another good place to look is KEH.com if you want to get it used, their BGN grade is like everyone else's EX grade too so don't worry about not buying one that has that grade on it.

04-21-2010, 07:11 PM	#7
flippedgazelle Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,270	There's another recent thread about "upgrading" to the 16-45. IMO, 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. I agree with Cody about the Sigma 17-70. In fact, the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 has in-lens OS (you can decide if SR or OS is better) and HSM, a close-up mode (1:2.7) for pseudo-macro work. It's $449/shipped. Adorama says it is "temporarily out of stock" of the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, but will let you order it for $369.

04-21-2010, 07:12 PM	#8
flippedgazelle Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,270	Cody, that 3rd pic is great!

04-21-2010, 07:17 PM	#9
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by flippedgazelle Cody, that 3rd pic is great! Thanks! It's one of my favorites from that lens, just looking at it makes me want to get it again. The last one is my favorite though. Here's a few helpers for you about the lens. Sigma \| 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens for Pentax \| 669109 669109 Sigma 17 - 70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Pentax AF Cameras

04-21-2010, 08:16 PM	#10
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by jct us101 I had it for Canon and I swear it was sharper than my nifty fifty, I never got a not very sharp image that wasn't my fault in taking. Your 50mm must have been broken. According to Photozone the 17-70 is not quite as sharp as the 16-45mm, and neither touches the FA 50.

04-21-2010, 08:22 PM	#12
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by audiobomber Your 50mm must have been broken. According to Photozone the 17-70 is not quite as sharp as the 16-45mm, and neither touches the FA 50. Maybe you shouldn't listen to Photozone? I have the photos to prove it. The Sigma is much sharper corner to corner especially, and although the 50mm has some great image quality, I think that the Sigma that I had was much sharper than it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2010, 08:30 PM	#13
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Last but not least in the da16-45's corner, its a constant aperture so that MAY be a real advantage depending on how you use it. I also have the WR version of the kit lens and find different uses for both, even when its not raining.

04-21-2010, 08:41 PM	#14
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by jct us101 Maybe you shouldn't listen to Photozone? I have the photos to prove it. The Sigma is much sharper corner to corner especially, and although the 50mm has some great image quality, I think that the Sigma that I had was much sharper than it. It was a Canon 50mm. Another alternative to the DA 16-45/4 and Sigma 17-70 is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. You either get an extra stop or a constant aperture, compared to Pentax and Sigma. Its new price is slightly higher, but so close it should be considered.

04-21-2010, 09:08 PM	#15
flippedgazelle Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,270	Originally posted by audiobomber That thread shows that quite a few owners disagree with you about the relative merits of the 16-45 vs the 18-55. I have both. The 16-45 is sharper, and has much better colour & contrast. I consider the 16-45 faster because it is sharp at f4 and the kit lens is soft unless it's stopped down. Of course at the long end, where it counts, the 16-45 is a stop faster, f4 vs 5.6. I know. That's why I pointed out that thread - so the OP could view multiple opinions. There's also plenty of folks who agree with me that the 16-45 is a only small step-up from the 18-55 mk ii, unless you need the extra 2mm on the wide end. To quote my 1st post, "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." Since when is "the long end, where it counts" applicable to the 16-45? Promoters of the 16-45 always emphasize the wider end. And as far as the 45mm point being a stop faster with the 16-45 than 18-55 mk ii, that is very true, but dial both lenses back just 2 mm and the advantage shrinks to a mere ~ 1/3 stop, f/4 to f/4.5. 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!