[goldenarrow]

I think you are right. The 16-85 isn't a small lens, but the 24-70 is bigger than it and has less range. Basically the 24-70 is the 16-50, but for full frame. The fact that it is usable on APS-C is only an extra plus.

I warrant for wedding photographers, this will be a perfect lens on APS-C,whether or not they choose to get full frame some day.

Also perhaps events like conferences and trade shows.

[Rondec]

Also perhaps events like conferences and trade shows.

Sure. Indoor, lower light settings. The 16-85 is going to need a couple of extra stops of light to match the sharpness of this lens in most of its range. I

[ogl]

Sorry. My internet connection is pretty slow and it takes a really long time to upload full size photos. I can see what I

I see. Thank you.

[Digitalis]

It appears to have excellent correction for LoCa.

[Rondec]

I see. Thank you.

Here are some that I uploaded this morning that should be full size. Hope that is helpful (full size on Flickr).

[Rondec]

Would love to see a lens flare comparison between the 16-50 and the 24-70! The 24-70 range is great for people photography. I could see myself shooting weddings 24-70/FF plus 50-135/k3 outside while shooting 24-70/k3/flash plus fast prime/FF inside.

These are some shots into the sun from last evening. The exposures aren't exactly the same, but I think you can see the flare characteristics of both lenses pretty well in these.

24-70 f2.8



16-50 f2.8



24-70 f5.6



16-50 f8



I feel pretty comfortable saying at this point that the 24-70 is quite a bit more usable shooting into the sun than the 16-50. It certainly isn't perfect, but it has a lot less veiling flare than the 16-50 and I would find it a lot easier to direct its flare into places where I could clone it out afterward.

---------- Post added 10-30-15 at 06:35 AM ----------

This is 70mm and f4 (full size available on Flickr)

[robjmitchell]

Thanks for the flare comparison Rondec!

[Driline]

These are some shots into the sun from last evening. The exposures aren't exactly the same, but I think you can see the flare characteristics of both lenses pretty well in these.

24-70 f2.8



16-50 f2.8



24-70 f5.6



16-50 f8



I feel pretty comfortable saying at this point that the 24-70 is quite a bit more usable shooting into the sun than the 16-50. It certainly isn't perfect, but it has a lot less veiling flare than the 16-50 and I would find it a lot easier to direct its flare into places where I could clone it out afterward.

---------- Post added 10-30-15 at 06:35 AM ----------

This is 70mm and f4 (full size available on Flickr)

Call me crazy, but I actually prefer the flare of the 16-50 over that blob the 24-70 produces

[bdery]

I've just come back from a local camera show in Quebec city, got to play with the 24-70 (and the 70-200, 150-450, and 560!). It's big, but surprisingly light. It focuses as fast as the 16-85, seems to deliver great colours (I'll have to check on my screen) and was pleasant to use.

However, that and the 70-200 convinced me that I'm not interested in full frame. Too big...

[Rondec]

Sunset.

[vievetrick]

finally able to get out for a short time with my new K3ii and New Pentax HD DFA 24-70 f2.8 - LOVING IT


24MM - F4 - 1/250 - ISO 200


35mm - F9 - 1/50 ISO200


48mm - F7.1 - 1/500 ISO 200

[LeRolls]

Call me crazy, but I actually prefer the flare of the 16-50 over that blob the 24-70 produces

I think I'd have to agree with you on that.

[acoufap]

I think I'd have to agree with you on that.

The images are not shot with the same angle of view and the ones taken with the 24-70 are significant brighter.

Therefore I'm not sure if we can compare these images concerning the "blob" - at least it's very hard to judge IMHO.

[Rondec]

I won't be adding to this thread for a little while.

My wife was shooting a wedding on Saturday and set camera with flash/24-70 down somewhere and turned to arrange a group and it got unbalanced and fell. Broke the foot on the flash and bent the lens's mount, but didn't seem to bother the camera. Looks fixable to me, so we'll pack it off to Precision and see what they can do...

---------- Post added 11-02-15 at 06:20 AM ----------

The images are not shot with the same angle of view and the ones taken with the 24-70 are significant brighter.

Therefore I'm not sure if we can compare these images concerning the "blob" - at least it's very hard to judge IMHO.

You're probably right. Here are the 16-50 images with exposure brightened to try to match the 24-70 photos.

(f2.8)



(f8)



Neither one of these lenses is great with shooting the sun. I just found that with the 24-70, it was less likely to disturb contrast throughout the image versus the 16-50 where half the frame can have decreased contrast due to flare.

[longbow]

Was able to get out into the woods when the sun was out and before the heavy rain hit again. Even though I like the 16-85, I'd choose this lens over it - it's rendering and wider aperture in low light. The extra weight and girth isn't a issue, though I do miss the extra 8mm on the wide end of the 16-85 at times.