Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

PENFRED · 12-21-2014, 08:04 AM

I've not had a chance to do any serious (i.e., tripod mounted) photos with my 16-85, so I don't have any definitive verdict on image quality (it seems pretty good to me, but maybe best left to the expert reviewers). However, I can say that I very much like the heft, solid feel, and build quality of the lens. Auto focus is good (like 18-135), and no zoom creep (unlike 18-135). It feels and handles much more like a pro lens (e.g., DA*16-50) than like a consumer grade zoom.

kh1234567890 · 12-21-2014, 08:23 AM

Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ...

Conqueror · 12-21-2014, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ...

its not been out long though and the price is quite high?

Docrwm · 12-21-2014, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Frater

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

If that is so, then why to prohibition against photos taken with it being kept? Makes little sense.

LensBeginner · 12-21-2014, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

If that is so, then why to prohibition against photos taken with it being kept? Makes little sense.

Maybe they don't want users to figure out the fact that it was cherry-picked, because then they would complain about getting a "bad copy"...

Nicolas06 · 12-21-2014, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ...

K3 is not even available as a body to search from in flickr and it is 1 year old.

The lense is quite new likely not many have been sold yet... And not everybody use flickr to upload their photo... or upload at all... or use a software that would allow to search for the lense.rt

Docrwm · 12-21-2014, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

Maybe they don't want users to figure out the fact that it was cherry-picked, because then they would complain about getting a "bad copy"...

Perhaps. Sad if true.

northcoastgreg · 12-21-2014, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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.

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole there. The DA 17-70 is actually pretty sharp in most places, so it's not clear that a lens that is sharp "everywhere" really is in a "different" class. Perhaps you could make a case for the 16-85's distinctive superiority based on AF performance, as there have been a lot of complaints about the DA 17-70's wonky AF and SDM failures.

AFAIC, the DA 16-85 only has to be a better than other lenses in its class (primarily the Nikkor 16-85 and the Canon 15-85) to be a success and justify it's MRSP. The Nikon and Canon lenses are actually pretty decent mid-range options. I see 12 by 18" and larger prints from the Nikkor 16-85 all the time, and that lens is capable of producing beautiful images. From what I've seen in terms of images produced by the Nikkor 16-85, the DA 17-70 is, by a slight margin, the better lens; and so if the DA 16-85 turns out to be even better than the DA 17-70 (even if by only a small margin), it could easily be regarded as the best lens in its class.

Jantus · 12-21-2014, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ...

Mine is actually wrapped up for christmas

I was able to test the lens on my k3 at my local electronic shop and i'm quite happy with the lens. I might post some sample shots during this or next week.

audiobomber · 12-21-2014, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole there. The DA 17-70 is actually pretty sharp in most places, so it's not clear that a lens that is sharp "everywhere" really is in a "different" class. Perhaps you could make a case for the 16-85's distinctive superiority based on AF performance, as there have been a lot of complaints about the DA 17-70's wonky AF and SDM failures.

He definitely mentioned MTF and he is strong on the superiority of HD coatings. He also mentioned superior build quality (which the 18-135 also has).

---------- Post added 2014-12-21 at 22:09 ----------

Originally posted by PENFRED

Auto focus is good (like 18-135), and no zoom creep (unlike 18-135). It feels and handles much more like a pro lens (e.g., DA*16-50) than like a consumer grade zoom.

My 18-135mm has never crept in the two+ years I've owned it. And it definitely feels pro grade.

I had my 16-45 out yesterday. What a great zoom. If the 16-85mm matches it, I will have to bite.

northcoastgreg · 12-21-2014, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

He definitely mentioned MTF and he is strong on the superiority of HD coatings.

I would expect the HD coatings to make a bigger difference with this lens than it has with any of the limiteds, simply because of all the extra glass.

Originally posted by audiobomber

I had my 16-45 out yesterday. What a great zoom. If the 16-85mm matches it, I will have to bite.

I suspect there's a very good chance the 16-85 will out perform the 16-45. After all, if the 16-85 is better than the 17-70, it's got to be better than the 16-45.

Nicolas06 · 12-22-2014, 12:24 AM

For sure to have both 17-70 & 16-85 is a bit too much to me in a line up. There are almost identical and if the quality is the same, there one lense that become useless. Only issue I would have is f/5.6 at the long end.

audiobomber · 12-22-2014, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

I suspect there's a very good chance the 16-85 will out perform the 16-45. After all, if the 16-85 is better than the 17-70, it's got to be better than the 16-45.

True, but I need to hear it from someone other than the Canadian Marketing Manager.

All zooms have weaknesses. I want the full story, there will be no pre-order this time. I did pre-order the 18-135mm because it was exactly what I wanted; extended range, WR, better than superzoom IQ.

Zygonyx · 12-22-2014, 09:28 AM - **2 Likes**

I've been using my HD DA 16-85 for 3 days now and i can insure anybody here that it is evenly better than SMC DA 18-135.
Impressive resolution + virtually no CA.
Faster AF.
A few pictures in my galery (tag : HD16-85mm), and new ones to be posted here soon.

northcoastgreg · 12-23-2014, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

For sure to have both 17-70 & 16-85 is a bit too much to me in a line up. There are almost identical and if the quality is the same, there one lenses that become useless. Only issue I would have is f/5.6 at the long end.

If f5.6 is a legitimate problem, than these lenses are quite identical, now are they? Nonetheless, I'm inclined to agree that the DA 17-70's days are numbered. Optically, it's a very fine lens, but it's been riddled with AF issues from the very beginning, and therefore never reached it's full potential.

Originally posted by Zygonyx

I've been using my HD DA 16-85 for 3 days now and i can insure anybody here that it is even better than SMC DA 18-135.

As I would have expected it to be. Thanks for the report.

12-22-2014, 09:28 AM - 2 Likes	#794
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	I've been using my HD DA 16-85 for 3 days now and i can insure anybody here that it is evenly better than SMC DA 18-135. Impressive resolution + virtually no CA. Faster AF. A few pictures in my galery (tag : HD16-85mm), and new ones to be posted here soon. Last edited by Zygonyx; 12-22-2014 at 09:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR	sholtzma	Sold Items	2	02-05-2014 01:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR - reduced price	tjwaung	Sold Items	8	12-21-2013 05:56 AM
new smc PENTAX-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC	KeesdH	Pentax News and Rumors	227	06-22-2011 03:57 AM
PENTAX-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR D	Fl_Gulfer	Pentax News and Rumors	20	11-26-2010 05:13 PM

12-21-2014, 08:04 AM	#781
PENFRED Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: DENVER Posts: 84	I've not had a chance to do any serious (i.e., tripod mounted) photos with my 16-85, so I don't have any definitive verdict on image quality (it seems pretty good to me, but maybe best left to the expert reviewers). However, I can say that I very much like the heft, solid feel, and build quality of the lens. Auto focus is good (like 18-135), and no zoom creep (unlike 18-135). It feels and handles much more like a pro lens (e.g., DA*16-50) than like a consumer grade zoom.

12-21-2014, 08:23 AM	#782
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ...

12-21-2014, 08:24 AM	#783
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	Originally posted by kh1234567890 Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ... its not been out long though and the price is quite high?

12-21-2014, 08:37 AM	#784
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by Frater 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 If that is so, then why to prohibition against photos taken with it being kept? Makes little sense.

12-21-2014, 09:14 AM	#785
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Docrwm If that is so, then why to prohibition against photos taken with it being kept? Makes little sense. Maybe they don't want users to figure out the fact that it was cherry-picked, because then they would complain about getting a "bad copy"...

12-21-2014, 09:14 AM	#786
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by kh1234567890 Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ... K3 is not even available as a body to search from in flickr and it is 1 year old. The lense is quite new likely not many have been sold yet... And not everybody use flickr to upload their photo... or upload at all... or use a software that would allow to search for the lense.rt

12-21-2014, 09:15 AM	#787
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by LensBeginner Maybe they don't want users to figure out the fact that it was cherry-picked, because then they would complain about getting a "bad copy"... Perhaps. Sad if true.

12-21-2014, 11:21 AM	#788
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,176	Originally posted by audiobomber 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. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole there. The DA 17-70 is actually pretty sharp in most places, so it's not clear that a lens that is sharp "everywhere" really is in a "different" class. Perhaps you could make a case for the 16-85's distinctive superiority based on AF performance, as there have been a lot of complaints about the DA 17-70's wonky AF and SDM failures. AFAIC, the DA 16-85 only has to be a better than other lenses in its class (primarily the Nikkor 16-85 and the Canon 15-85) to be a success and justify it's MRSP. The Nikon and Canon lenses are actually pretty decent mid-range options. I see 12 by 18" and larger prints from the Nikkor 16-85 all the time, and that lens is capable of producing beautiful images. From what I've seen in terms of images produced by the Nikkor 16-85, the DA 17-70 is, by a slight margin, the better lens; and so if the DA 16-85 turns out to be even better than the DA 17-70 (even if by only a small margin), it could easily be regarded as the best lens in its class.

12-21-2014, 06:13 PM	#789
Jantus New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 14	Originally posted by kh1234567890 Given the noticeable lack of shots taken with this lens on Flickr I can only conclude that either no-one had actually bought it or that they are all wrapped up under people's christmas trees ... Mine is actually wrapped up for christmas I was able to test the lens on my k3 at my local electronic shop and i'm quite happy with the lens. I might post some sample shots during this or next week.

12-21-2014, 08:06 PM	#790
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by northcoastgreg Perhaps a bit of hyperbole there. The DA 17-70 is actually pretty sharp in most places, so it's not clear that a lens that is sharp "everywhere" really is in a "different" class. Perhaps you could make a case for the 16-85's distinctive superiority based on AF performance, as there have been a lot of complaints about the DA 17-70's wonky AF and SDM failures. He definitely mentioned MTF and he is strong on the superiority of HD coatings. He also mentioned superior build quality (which the 18-135 also has). ---------- Post added 2014-12-21 at 22:09 ---------- Originally posted by PENFRED Auto focus is good (like 18-135), and no zoom creep (unlike 18-135). It feels and handles much more like a pro lens (e.g., DA*16-50) than like a consumer grade zoom. My 18-135mm has never crept in the two+ years I've owned it. And it definitely feels pro grade. I had my 16-45 out yesterday. What a great zoom. If the 16-85mm matches it, I will have to bite.

12-21-2014, 08:33 PM	#791
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,176	Originally posted by audiobomber He definitely mentioned MTF and he is strong on the superiority of HD coatings. I would expect the HD coatings to make a bigger difference with this lens than it has with any of the limiteds, simply because of all the extra glass. Originally posted by audiobomber I had my 16-45 out yesterday. What a great zoom. If the 16-85mm matches it, I will have to bite. I suspect there's a very good chance the 16-85 will out perform the 16-45. After all, if the 16-85 is better than the 17-70, it's got to be better than the 16-45.

12-22-2014, 12:24 AM	#792
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	For sure to have both 17-70 & 16-85 is a bit too much to me in a line up. There are almost identical and if the quality is the same, there one lense that become useless. Only issue I would have is f/5.6 at the long end.

12-22-2014, 05:44 AM	#793
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by northcoastgreg I suspect there's a very good chance the 16-85 will out perform the 16-45. After all, if the 16-85 is better than the 17-70, it's got to be better than the 16-45. True, but I need to hear it from someone other than the Canadian Marketing Manager. All zooms have weaknesses. I want the full story, there will be no pre-order this time. I did pre-order the 18-135mm because it was exactly what I wanted; extended range, WR, better than superzoom IQ.

12-23-2014, 09:53 AM	#795
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,176	Originally posted by Nicolas06 For sure to have both 17-70 & 16-85 is a bit too much to me in a line up. There are almost identical and if the quality is the same, there one lenses that become useless. Only issue I would have is f/5.6 at the long end. If f5.6 is a legitimate problem, than these lenses are quite identical, now are they? Nonetheless, I'm inclined to agree that the DA 17-70's days are numbered. Optically, it's a very fine lens, but it's been riddled with AF issues from the very beginning, and therefore never reached it's full potential. Originally posted by Zygonyx I've been using my HD DA 16-85 for 3 days now and i can insure anybody here that it is even better than SMC DA 18-135. As I would have expected it to be. Thanks for the report.

HD PENTAX-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!