[Erikka]

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

[VoiceOfReason]

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 ----------

Does not appear so. Here's the story:
Iconic Shipwreck's Fire Likely Caused by Light Painting Photographer

Instagram.... Tells me all I needed to know.

[phat_bog]

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

[Mountain Vision]

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.

[Digitalis]

maybe protect the mounting with a piece of rubber

you wouldn't want the rubber to break...

[Mountain Vision]

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.

[VoiceOfReason]

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.

[phat_bog]

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.

[SGOMMO7]

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