Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-23-2016, 02:14 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Erikka's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Se
Photos: Albums
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by john5100 Quote
Wonderful boat photo. Sucks when people do stupid things like burn that boat.

Erikka - Good call on the 16-45mm F4. I've heard some really great things about it.


For our California friends 12-24mm

San Francisco - Fort Point
by John Rudolph, on Flickr
yeah ppl are probably sick of me suggesting it, but I really like it and is my go-to lens and never leaves my ancient K200D hahaha, yeah one day soon I'll join the modern world but as long as that lens works I;m keeping it heh

06-23-2016, 03:24 PM   #32
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,419
QuoteOriginally posted by Erikka Quote
yeah ppl are probably sick of me suggesting it, but I really like it and is my go-to lens and never leaves my ancient K200D hahaha, yeah one day soon I'll join the modern world but as long as that lens works I;m keeping it heh
It may be good, but it isn't in the class of the others he was asking about. You can still find it in the 190-230 range though.

---------- Post added 06-23-16 at 04:28 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by carolina_sky Quote
Instagram.... Tells me all I needed to know.
06-23-2016, 03:45 PM   #33
Forum Member
phat_bog's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Paris
Posts: 80
Without any possible doubt, take the best one : 18-35mm 1.8 Sigma.

don't take WR as a necessity, it is 90% marketing. All my sigma and old FA* lenses withstand rain and temps very well. You can shoot under rain with a 18-35mm sigma, it's very well sealed, just take care if heavy rain or heavy dust, maybe protect the mounting with a piece of rubber
06-23-2016, 04:34 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: America's First Wilderness
Posts: 361
I'd highly consider the 16-85mm WR. It gives you plenty wide (24mm effective, which I realize isn't that wide anymore, but it's still pretty damn wide) and a nice short tele. It's optically better than almost all the lenses on the list, though slower. The nice thing about it. It's not only usable wide open, but it's pretty sharp edge to edge. Obviously, it's not the ultimate lens Pentax ever created, but as a one stop lens, I really like it.

The 20-40mm DA is also weather sealed.

I think you need to consider how you'll be using the lens. The 16-85 is not really an ideal existing light lens. It's also not a bokeh/depth of focus monster.

It is a reasonably compact, high quality, sealed zoom that if paired with a fast prime should suit most of your needs. For me, pairing it with my 35mm FA gives me plenty of options out of a 2 lens kit that will suit 80% of my photographic interest.

Only caveat on the 16-85 is the lack of a zoom lock. It means mounting it to something like a Peak Designs exterior mount is less an option. I haven't really noticed zoom creep, but I definitely expect it would be an issue with the lens mounted downward and a lot of motion.

06-23-2016, 06:05 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,796
QuoteOriginally posted by phat_bog Quote
maybe protect the mounting with a piece of rubber
you wouldn't want the rubber to break...

Last edited by Digitalis; 06-23-2016 at 11:26 PM.
06-23-2016, 07:51 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: America's First Wilderness
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by phat_bog Quote

don't take WR as a necessity, it is 90% marketing. All my sigma and old FA* lenses withstand rain and temps very well. You can shoot under rain with a 18-35mm sigma, it's very well sealed, just take care if heavy rain or heavy dust, maybe protect the mounting with a piece of rubber
The best landscape and adventure photos are taken in either inclement conditions or at the edge of those conditions... Such as the clearing of a storm. This means your camera might be exposed to the elements to get the shot.

I've shot with some old manual lenses and some beater lenses in the elements over the years. In fact, that is why I bought those old lenses. To be sacrificed. Rarely with my good stuff. While I never ruined anything, or even noticed any water ingress, I have seen plenty of reports of people having water drip into their mirror box, or worse.
If you shoot a lot outdoors, and can't always protect your camera, such as hiking, paddling, backpacking or mountaineering it's a nice added piece of security. It's also nice if you say, leave your camera out for a time laps or star trails and wake up and it's raining. So for me, given the choice of WR or non, the non WR lens better be light years superior.

WR might not be necessary, but it's an added security and an advantage when people shooting non sealed equipment have to miss shots because they can't risk the equipment loss.


06-23-2016, 08:31 PM   #37
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,419
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Same. I'm not taking that lens out in inclement weather. That's why I have WR lenses.

OP, get the DA* 16-50 or if you can swing it the DFA 24-70f/2.8. They cover the range you want, are sharp premium lenses, are fast enough for lower light situations, and are WR.
06-24-2016, 01:37 AM   #38
Forum Member
phat_bog's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Paris
Posts: 80
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
Same. I'm not taking that lens out in inclement weather. That's why I have WR lenses.

OP, get the DA* 16-50 or if you can swing it the DFA 24-70f/2.8. They cover the range you want, are sharp premium lenses, are fast enough for lower light situations, and are WR.
Honestly , I've got 2 dust particles (one big, one alomost indistinguable) under the back lens element of a DFA WR 24-70mm, after 2 months of use. So i'll reconsider, actually, for professional lenses usage, WR is not 90% but 100% marketing. My FA* 80-200mm is intact after a decade of usage.

Also, got a a DA* 55 SDM supposedly WR after what i've read. SDM died because of water drops that got inside through the front, between the lens elements and the plastic body.

Go for sigma 18-35mm.

06-25-2016, 11:05 PM - 1 Like   #39
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 54
Jabba the Hutt is not a good title for this post!

The 20-40 is my most used and currently my favorite lens.

I was looking at the Sigma 18-35, but then I came to realize that the 20-40 would see way more use because it is at a weight I wouldn't think twice about caring with me, (lighter than my 31mm) while the Sigma would be a chore for me to carry around.

The 20-40 has the best weight, and flare resistance out of the lenses you are looking at, it will also be compatible with continuous autofocus in video mode on Pentax's new cameras, (don't think the 16-50 will be, not sure about the 18-35 but probably not).

The 18-35 though not weather sealed would be best for lowlight out of the lenses you're looking at, for portraiture the 16-50, and for street photography the 20-40.

Subjectively concerning boca I'd say the Sigma has the worst, the 20-40 has the best, but as being not as bright as the 16-50, (after about 24mm) the 16-50 might be better for, "boca centric" work.

Here's an example of the 20-40's boca:
Neighborhood-Fence by Download-Happy-Face on DeviantArt

But besides that the 20-40 was designed to try to capture spatial presence, (I'm assuming nothing was lost in translation here) I found that very intriguing and thought that that may fit my photography style.

The Pentax 16-50 is meant to be a professional lens with a very useful zoom range, and some models, (particularly the earlier models) have problems with the autofocus giving out.

The Sigma 18-35 is meant to be an engineering marvel, the first 1.8 zoom with great optical sharpness while still remaining affordable, at the expense of: weight, zoom range, a bit of flair and some boca issues, (a bit busy at times and sometimes large outlines around the boca circles).
Some specimens do exhibit erratic focusing on some Pentax bodies however.



The 20-40 is meant to be light, and unique in its rendering, at the expense of zoom range, aperture size, and some sharpness. Some models, (particularly earlier models again) show low sharpness at some or multiple parts of the zoom range. Good copies of the lens should be sharp throughout the zoom range, so checking for decentering is advised.

Hope this was helpful and happy choosing
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
12-24mm, camera, da, dslr, flickr, john, lens, opinion, pentax, photography, rudolph, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
24-70 vs 20-40 braver Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-09-2016 07:39 PM
20-40 vs. 16-85 Squawk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 08-22-2015 04:28 PM
Tamron 17-50 vs. FA 24-90 vs. DA 18-135 JPT Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 48 03-08-2015 02:27 PM
DA*16-50 vs DA 20-40 WR jrobe121 Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 01-10-2015 10:15 AM
LBA 12-24 vs DA*16-50 knumbnutz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 10-06-2009 06:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top