[LensBeginner]

I just posted some early observations in the lens reviews section.

Thanks, looks an interesting lens, at least IQ-wise!

[flomat]

Thanks

*Welcome*
Maybe to sum it up: Sharpness between 16 and 35mm is absolutely impressive, definitely better than the DA16-45, from 45mm to 85mm sharpness gradually degrades falling short of a good DA18-250. This is not true for aberations and colour response which remain at very good to excellent levels througout the zoom range – at least for my understanding. Vignetting is slightly worse and the need for light is obvious, while built, distortion, AF and handling are of good character.

[Jantus]

I just posted some early observations in the lens reviews section.

I looked it up and noticed something odd: I felt like i've just read it in german. I looked that up as well and yes, you posted the same review in the german dslr-Forum, which is quite funny

PS.:
vielen Dank für die ausführlichen Eindrücke; das Objektiv scheint ja recht gut zu sein

[FantasticMrFox]

X

X)

Wait, all of us are members of dslr-forum.de?! Now I'm getting curious about the user names

Anyway, reading that the 16-85 equals the DA 35 f/2.4 in sharpness at 35 is certainly exceeding most expectations. You note that sharpness isn't that great from 55 mm on and compare it to the DA 18-250 - I don't know the latter, but considering it's a superzoom that doesn't soind too encouraging. The only zoom I currently own is the DA L 18-55 WR, how do the two (16-85 and 18-55) compare at 55 mm?

---

Last edited by FantasticMrFox; 12-08-2014 at 04:25 PM.

[Jantus]

Wait, all of us are members of dslr-forum.de?! Now I'm getting curious about the user names

I'm not a member of it (yet).

btw: the Fantastic Mr. Fox is a really great movie (and probably book)

[FantasticMrFox]

btw: the Fantastic Mr. Fox is a really great movie (and probably book)

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mr.-Fox-Waves-Goodbye-To-The-B...ic-Mr.-Fox.gif

I seem to have a recently acquired talent to lead threads astray into off-topic territory ...

[flomat]

which is quite funny

Having received a lot of help while ready through the two forums in the past years I thought like giving back something by sharing some first (subjective) thoughts on this new lens and helping others. I guess this is like forums work, especially as this lens seems to be quite seldom available yet. I do not see something odd in sharing these thoughts here and there.

---------- Post added 12-09-2014 at 06:59 AM ----------

The only zoom I currently own is the DA L 18-55 WR, how do the two (16-85 and 18-55) compare at 55 mm

You have to take into account that there are better and worse copies of lenses especially in the zoom sector. So, if it compares in a way to me copy of a 18-55 it must not be true for others in all cases.
However, I found the 18-250 to be superior to the 18-55WR in the range they share. Only considering sharpness of the lens, the DA 16-85 is somewhat similar to the 18-55 @ 55. This is not true for other parameters like CAs, where the new HD coating seem to show it's strengthness. But don't geht me wrong, in real day life, the lens seems to be also in the range 55 to 85 a quite good performer.

---------- Post added 12-09-2014 at 07:02 AM ----------

16-85 equals the DA 35 f/2.4 in sharpness at 35 is certainly exceeding most expectations

As I said sharpness performance between 16 and 35 is excellent with a sweet spot around 24mm. At 35mm the DA35/2.4 and the HD16-85 show similar performance regarding sharpness (I must admit, sometimes I fear I do not own one of the best copies of a DA 35/2.4 though it's fine for sure).

---

Last edited by flomat; 12-09-2014 at 01:06 AM.

[wheelerp]

Don't discount the HD coating. It should do a good job with flare and give the colors that little extra "pop". Perhaps not worth switching from the 18-135, but could be a better alternative to that lens for those of us who don't have a mid-range zoom.

[PENFRED]

Don't discount the HD coating. It should do a good job with flare and give the colors that little extra "pop". Perhaps not worth switching from the 18-135, but could be a better alternative to that lens for those of us who don't have a mid-range zoom.

Suprise! My 16-85 from Amazon arriving this Thursday.

[dominique]

Great! Please post your impressions on the lens. I like the range from 16-85mm, though I would have liked it a bit faster.

[PENFRED]

16-85 arrived tonight and everything looks great so far - not really all that big, and it balances well on the K3 - but no lens case!

$750 lens should include a case - those cheap buggers!

Oh well, I just heard of someone buying a $1000 Canon lens, and the hood was extra!

At least this one comes with a hood, and looks good.

[Zygonyx]

+1
Excellent looking thing !

[audiobomber]

I went to the local Henry's for a "Pentax Sales Event". The Marketing Manager for Canada was there, with a nice collection of lenses. He had a 16-85, but it was pre-production so I was not allowed to record any images. All I could do was mount it on the camera. I removed my 16-45, which was a good comparator, same length, the 16-85 was very slightly fatter, but the weight was quite different. Frankly I found the K-3 front-heavy with the new lens mounted. The 16-45 was much better balanced.

He was very high on the 16-85's capabilities. I asked about IQ vs. the 17-70 f4 and he said the 16-85 is in a different class, very sharp everywhere. That doesn't line up with flomat's experience.

You have to take into account that there are better and worse copies of lenses especially in the zoom sector. So, if it compares in a way to me copy of a 18-55 it must not be true for others in all cases.
However, I found the 18-250 to be superior to the 18-55WR in the range they share. Only considering sharpness of the lens, the DA 16-85 is somewhat similar to the 18-55 @ 55.

I'm hoping that was a poor sample. The 18-55 is dismal at 55mm f5.6. My 16-45 was sharper than both my copies of the 18-55, even with the 16-45 shot @ f4 and cropped to 55mm. My DA L 18-55 was exactly as sharp as my 18-250mm in their common range. As you said, there is variation, but if the 16-85 is not significantly better than the 18-55, it will be a failure. My 18-135mm certainly exceeds that standard.

[Docrwm]

I went to the local Henry's for a "Pentax Sales Event". The Marketing Manager for Canada was there, with a nice collection of lenses. He had a 16-85, but it was pre-production so I was not allowed to record any images. All I could do was mount it on the camera. I removed my 16-45, which was a good comparator, same length, the 16-85 was very slightly fatter, but the weight was quite different. Frankly I found the K-3 front-heavy with the new lens mounted. The 16-45 was much better balanced.

He was very high on the 16-85's capabilities. I asked about IQ vs. the 17-70 f4 and he said the 16-85 is in a different class, very sharp everywhere. That doesn't line up with flomat's experience.


I'm hoping that was a poor sample. The 18-55 is dismal at 55mm f5.6. My 16-45 was sharper than both my copies of the 18-55, even with the 16-45 shot @ f4 and cropped to 55mm. My DA L 18-55 was exactly as sharp as my 18-250mm in their common range. As you said, there is variation, but if the 16-85 is not significantly better than the 18-55, it will be a failure. My 18-135mm certainly exceeds that standard.

Why on Earth would you take a pre-production copy of a lens to a sales event for the public if the actual lens has been released? I agree with your assessment and am sticking with my 18-135 until more data is in on non-pre-production copies of the lens.

[Frater]

Why on Earth would you take a pre-production copy of a lens to a sales event for the public if the actual lens has been released?

Because that pre-production copy would already have been serviced towards perfection (zero tolerances), so that it would shine on sales events.
Of course, that would not be representatve for the quality of normal production copies we would get later, so this is somewhat cheaty of course, but that's probably the nature of most advertising