[WorksAsIntended]

Some of us would reverse the order and say the opposite.

The DA*16-50 is a "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts." zoom. The DA 16-85 was probably the first "modern lenses for modern sensors zoom." So that would depend entirely on how you defined the your criteria for such a comparison.

MTF for the 16-50


MTF for the 16-85


The 16-85 is softer centre better edges. I think you need them both.

I do not put the 16-50 in the list of high end f2.8 standard zooms either.

[repaap]

I have 16-50/2.8 and when i still had K-3, it waas my to go lens. 'Sharpness' was never issue for me. Just because i wanted to have a K-1 then i would not use it any more. Main problem for 16-50 is fringing and flare. Also my copy is sharp from 16-40 that last 10 mm is not on par with rest. But it is still usable. Also focusing has been fast enough and lens is usable from wide open. also distortion was too much at 16 mm.


I'd say that updated 16-50/2.8 would be good idea. Great walkabout lens and fast enogh zoom and it is also not that big.

[normhead]

Great walkabout lens and fast enogh zoom and it is also not that big.

But only if you can handle the relatively limited range. 50mm is slightly telephoto on APS-c, but still only slightly. Many of my 18-135 images are taken at full reach. 85 is a great compromise. 50, not so much. It all depends on what and where you shoot.

[beholder3]

The 16-85 is softer centre better edges.

In my experience that is not even true. I do love 24mm FF-equiv = 16mm on APSC. And if you shoot at F5.6 instead of F2.8 the image quality of the DA* 16-50 exceeds the DA16-85 not only in the center but also quite visibly in the extreme corners.
On my copy the DA* 16-50 produced tack sharp extreme corners at 16mm F5.6, while the DA 16-85 produced "nice" corners but they were no competition to the DA*. And the center sharpness of the DA* at 16mm is leading as well.

If you like 16mm F5.6 shooting the DA* is unsurpassed on K-mount.

[normhead]

In my experience that is not even true. I do love 24mm FF-equiv = 16mm on APSC. And if you shoot at F5.6 instead of F2.8 the image quality of the DA* 16-50 exceeds the DA16-85 not only in the center but also quite visibly in the extreme corners.
On my copy the DA* 16-50 produced tack sharp extreme corners at 16mm F5.6, while the DA 16-85 produced "nice" corners but they were no competition to the DA*. And the center sharpness of the DA* at 16mm is leading as well.

If you like 16mm F5.6 shooting the DA* is unsurpassed on K-mount.

On your copies.
I have two copies of the DA 55-300 PLM... one is significantly better than the other.
I don't say the DA 55-300 PLM is better than the DA 55-300 PLM because I'd sound stupid, but it's true.

I've always advanced the idea you buy the focal length and apertures you need. Lens quality is a crap shoot. There are good and bad copies for whatever you buy. You have to deal with over all comments, not specific cases. SO, good to have your vote, someone buying these two lenses might have your experience. But others have not. Where the OP's experience will fall would have to be expressed in percentages of likely hood, but no guarantees. That would also be tempered by whether or not your information is pixel peeping, or actual photographic use.

I rarely get to view full size images that use all the resolution the camera provides. Pixel peeping is not a valid point of reference for many of us. I like my K-1 for it's DR and rendering. Absolute values in pixel peeping never enter the equation.

[repaap]

But only if you can handle the relatively limited range. 50mm is slightly telephoto on APS-c, but still only slightly. Many of my 18-135 images are taken at full reach. 85 is a great compromise. 50, not so much. It all depends on what and where you shoot.

It sertainly does matter. But 18-135 and 16-85 is different. For my taste I’d like have faster aperture anyway for longer end. Depending what one is shooting.

[beholder3]

On your copies.

That is a universal given. Unless we talk about lens rentals any internet user, blogger, "reviewer", "tester" makes a (statistically not relevant) statement about his personal copies only.
Lens rentals data proves that lens "sharpness", especially from 3rd party producers, can vary by 30% easily between copies.

[normhead]

That is a universal given. Unless we talk about lens rentals any internet user, blogger, "reviewer", "tester" makes a (statistically not relevant) statement about his personal copies only.
Lens rentals data proves that lens "sharpness", especially from 3rd party producers, can vary by 30% easily between copies.

I always feel bad when I recommend my 18-135 and people look at the images and go for it, then their copy isn't as good. You do your best, given the lenses you have, that's all you can do. 30% is crazy but not un-expected. I'd say 15% is significant, just as a wild guess.

[beholder3]

I'd say 15% is significant, just as a wild guess.

Look at the width of the corridors, e.g. the green one, for the Sigma. Especially at the outer frame and edges (right end of graph).

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/09/allvariance.jpg

With good quality control it shouldn't be corridors, but just fat lines.

The copy variation is so huge (less for Canon, but definitely huge for Sigma and Zeiss) that if you choose lower ends from one model and higher ends from another and then vice versa you can "prove" either lens is much better than the other.

[normhead]

I have an excellent DA 55-300 and an average DA*60-250, I'm pretty sure I can prove the DA 55-300 is better than my 60-250.
That has been a point I've been trying to hammer home for the better part of 10 years now. If I'd had the 30% number I could have gone to Optical Limits or any testing site to demonstrate that.
I have never seen any evidence that the "I have to have the sharpest lens out there" folks ever take better images than those of us cheapies who buy the best lens we can afford for the job we want to do.
They assume their lenses are better because of test charts. But their images don't support that.

My biggest objection to posts on the forum come from lens snobs. "My lens cost 5 times as much as yours did, my pictures are better." They remind me of the snobby kid from high school going on about how much everything he owned costs.
If I don't like your images, how much you paid for your gear means nothing.

The silence when that guy won the Flickr image of the year (from the "I own the most expensive lens ever" crowd) with a K-x and kit lens was deafening.
I probably have spent 10 times what that guy has spent on equipment, yet none of my work was even considered.
The guy is a champion. And proved what many have said endlessly. Right time right place with a capable camera beats expensive high end gear every time, and produces better results.
I can hear the high end chorus. "But if you shoot the scene with an average camera and I'm there and shoot the same scene with my expensive gear, mine will be better.'
Yet in one of my tests my lowly FA 35-80 was judged better on exactly the same image by twice the average lens and led the pack, when viewed as an image, not pixel peeping.
Expensive big bucks gear is not the advantage gear snobs claim it is.

People need to get out there and shoot with what they have. The advantage of more expensive equipment is supported only by hype and bluster. You can still win the Flickr photo of the year with an antique sensor and a kit lens. And while those of us who have spent more money may think we can do better, most of us haven't.

To a certain extent, I buy lenses I think I will enjoy using. The whole IQ based on test chart conclusions thing is focused on way too much.

[c.a.m]

People need to get out there and shoot with what they have. The advantage of more expensive equipment is supported only by hype and bluster. You can still win the Flickr photo of the year with an antique sensor and a kit lens.

Apart from the promise of these new Pentax lenses, I'm beginning to develop a sense that my current lenses are sufficient for what I shoot. I just can't find a way to justify acquiring the new lenses that are priced in the $1500-2500 range.


Then, I reflect back on my first SLR, an Olympus OM-10 that I had in the early 80s. I had only two lenses -- a new 50/1.8 and a used 135/3.5. That's all I could afford as a grad student. But man, my small cardboard box of prints contains my best memories from that era. Most of them are simple documentaries, but several are pretty artistic, in my opinion. One of my most treasured prints is a 4x6 of my first car (1974 Toyota Corona). It's not entirely in focus; the composition is terrible; and the colours might be off. But, there it is -- my only picture of that car. Seems that my camera and those two lenses served me well back then.


- Craig

[jatrax]

I have never seen any evidence that the "I have to have the sharpest lens out there" folks ever take better images than those of us cheapies who buy the best lens we can afford for the job we want to do.

Possibly the best photographer / artist I have ever met used the kit lens on a Canon DSLR. When asked she did not know what camera she used. Not the model, the brand. She had to pull her camera out of the bag to check. I met her at an art show when our booths were near each other. Her work was so incredible I was embarrassed to even show her my booth.

My point is that to her the 'gear' was completely unimportant. Even irrelevant. The only thing that mattered to her was the quality of the images. Printed, not pixel peeped. I doubt she would have any idea what pixel peeped means. Her work was stunning not because it was technically perfect but because each image told a story with an impact that literally stopped people in their tracks.

[reh321]

It sertainly does matter. But 18-135 and 16-85 is different. For my taste I’d like have faster aperture anyway for longer end. Depending what one is shooting.

It depends on what you are shooting, and what you are shooting with. With my KP, I have gotten some shots at ISO setting of 25K that show no noise, so you would have no reason other than reduced DOF to shoot with wider aperture, and that doesn't fit into my style, so I am quite happy with my DA 18-135mm.

[repaap]

It depends on what you are shooting, and what you are shooting with. With my KP, I have gotten some shots at ISO setting of 25K that show no noise, so you would have no reason other than reduced DOF to shoot with wider aperture, and that doesn't fit into my style, so I am quite happy with my DA 18-135mm.

Hi, yes. Ofcourse. And these are matter of taste. However, there was also mentioned this thing called ’mojo’. Dunno if that is scentifically correct, just because, and non native english speaker/writer I can use that card and presume that people get the picture. Anyway. As I have said part of Mojo is wide shooting and part of it is to have shallow Dof occasionally/when needed/wanted/mojo. And that is -the- reason for ’faster’ zoom(it is also one ofthe reasons why I personally went with K-1(and it does matter what are you shooting with also in that way)). Besides, high ISO is one thing and nice clean ISO around 100-1600 is nice. This is different when you are getting great result with hihg ISO and what cameras/codec is capable of, but here are also things which are up to ones taste. If something is where -I don’t care for- it does not mean that others are wrong. Horses for courses

[H. Sapiens]

Normhead! You have a link for that photo shot on the K-x? I didn't even know there is a best of ... on Flickr (but of course there is), now I am having a look at some 25 best of-lists. That inspired me to learn more about a city of nomads in Kazakhstan and the jewish community in Antwerp. And that is photography to me - I am just more interested in the world it captures and the stories it suggests than the corner sharpness of some lens.


Same for Jatrax. You have a name/link to that woman's photos. I'm just curious.