Originally posted by Des I wonder how much appeal a revised 16-45 f4 would hold? For those who need f2.8 there's the 16-50; for those who don't there's the 16-85. Yes, a little less bulky, a little faster at the long end and presumably cheaper than the 16-85, but much more limiting focal range for a walkaround lens.
I bought the 16-45 along with my *ist D in early 2004, and it was my main walkaround until finally replacing it five years later with the Tamron 17-50/2.8.
I always liked the 16-45. It was so lightweight for what it was -- a wider than average medium zoom with very good image quality. Only 366g. Not very long on the long end but there's always cropping. Though the Tamron is also lightweight for what it is, its additional weight compared to the 16-45 has always been my least favorite thing about it.
There's a lot of chatter about chromatic aberration on this lens, but in tens of thousands of shots I found it bothersome on exactly one. I'm sure I could find more with pixel-peeping.
It had an interesting locking feature where if you twisted it all the way to 45mm, it would go a bit further to lock against zoom creep. No button to push or release for zoom lock. The Tamron has a button. Every time I use that button on the Tamron I think of the 16-45's superior way of doing zoom lock.
Anyway -- I think the appeal of an updated version of the 16-45 would be the light weight for a very-good quality medium zoom that goes to 16mm. Weather sealing and a motor would add weight, but if they update this lens, I think it would be because it could still be very lightweight for what it is.
But it would surprise me if they updated this lens after all these years. I think the appearance of the 17-70 represented Pentax's decision that the 16-45 focal length range was a marketing mistake (it was their first DA lens; before that the *ist D had been paired with the cheap 18-35). Another update on the 18-55 seems more likely; it's been a while (HD coating??). Or something entirely new.