DA 16-45 f/4 lens

Ed in GA · 10-27-2007, 03:54 PM

Recently, I sold my DA 16-45 to make room for the new DA* 16-50 that I was preparing to purchase along with the K10D.

For the last couple of days, I've been shooting with the DA 18-55 kit lens that came with my K100D.

And, I have the following observation.....

I find the DA 18-55 Kit lens to be a very nicely performing lens. Especially for a lens that can be bought on e-bay for around $60 most of the time and it cost about that much if you include it with a kit.

Now, having said that.... If you have a DA 18-55 and are considering replacing it with the DA 16-45... Don't wait, don't pass GO, Don't collect $200, get on the internet, or go to your favorite retailer and buy one..... There is a marked difference in these lens.

The 16-45 lens produces sharper, brighter and just overall better photographs. In fact, I've had a couple of folks tell me that they like it better than the DA* 16-50 (I'll have my opinion on that one in a few weeks). It is an extraordinarily good lens.

So, again, if you're thinking about buying one and just can't get off the fence.... Do it and do it now.

Thank you for entertaining my rant.

Ed

simonkit · 10-27-2007, 04:55 PM

As mentioned the kit lens is O.K but there are much better (but more expensive) alternatives - I chose the Sigma 17-70 rather than the Pentax 16-45, both very good options to replace the kit lens by all accounts

simon

Falcons · 10-27-2007, 04:58 PM

Fully agree - the Pentax 16-45 is an absolute treasure of a lens.

Finn · 10-27-2007, 05:42 PM

I am continually surprised and impressed by the 16-45. In fact, I think the IQ even beats my DA 21, although I hate to admit it, seeing how I paid $150 more for the 21.

A HUGE step up from the kit lens, or any other zoom I've used, for that matter.

Chako · 10-27-2007, 06:07 PM

I never got the kit lens, but I do have the 16-45 lens, and agree. With that said, I am pleasantly surprised at the 50-200 that I do have. That one is a keeper and a steal considering it is the other half of the kit lens combo.

selar · 10-27-2007, 11:03 PM

I have a sharp 50-200 as well, but am a bit upset with the bokeh you get with it. Definitely a kit sort of lens.

Mike Bokeh · 10-29-2007, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by EddyinGA

The 16-45 lens produces sharper, brighter and just overall better photographs. In fact, I've had a couple of folks tell me that they like it better than the DA* 16-50 (I'll have my opinion on that one in a few weeks). It is an extraordinarily good lens.

So, again, if you're thinking about buying one and just can't get off the fence.... Do it and do it now.

Thank you for entertaining my rant.

Ed

I have to agree with you there, Ed.

I recently bought a 16-45, and love it.

It's a very good lens.

Mike

Buksikoma · 10-30-2007, 11:17 AM

I must join in, 16-45 is truly amazing!

vievetrick · 10-30-2007, 11:59 AM

Have had t he 16-45 for about a year or two. It is buy far on the front of the camera most of the time. I have had a bit of LBA and thinking about getting the 16-50 but not as willing to part with my money as I would for a FA77. Time will tell but the 16-45 is for me a great, great lens.

ricosuave · 10-30-2007, 12:56 PM

does anyone have any opinions of 16-45 vs the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in terms of IQ?

creampuff · 10-30-2007, 12:56 PM

The 16-45mm f/4 is a decent lens for normal photo taking but unfortunately isn't appropriate when used for digital infrared photography. There is noticeable hot spotting in the centre which make it all but useless. In this regard, the 18-55mm kit lens outperforms it hands down.

10-27-2007, 03:54 PM	#1
Ed in GA Guest	DA 16-45 f/4 lens Recently, I sold my DA 16-45 to make room for the new DA* 16-50 that I was preparing to purchase along with the K10D. For the last couple of days, I've been shooting with the DA 18-55 kit lens that came with my K100D. And, I have the following observation..... I find the DA 18-55 Kit lens to be a very nicely performing lens. Especially for a lens that can be bought on e-bay for around $60 most of the time and it cost about that much if you include it with a kit. Now, having said that.... If you have a DA 18-55 and are considering replacing it with the DA 16-45... Don't wait, don't pass GO, Don't collect $200, get on the internet, or go to your favorite retailer and buy one..... There is a marked difference in these lens. The 16-45 lens produces sharper, brighter and just overall better photographs. In fact, I've had a couple of folks tell me that they like it better than the DA* 16-50 (I'll have my opinion on that one in a few weeks). It is an extraordinarily good lens. So, again, if you're thinking about buying one and just can't get off the fence.... Do it and do it now. Thank you for entertaining my rant. Ed

10-30-2007, 12:56 PM	#11
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Unsuitable for IR The 16-45mm f/4 is a decent lens for normal photo taking but unfortunately isn't appropriate when used for digital infrared photography. There is noticeable hot spotting in the centre which make it all but useless. In this regard, the 18-55mm kit lens outperforms it hands down.

10-27-2007, 04:55 PM	#2
simonkit Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Wales, UK Posts: 645	As mentioned the kit lens is O.K but there are much better (but more expensive) alternatives - I chose the Sigma 17-70 rather than the Pentax 16-45, both very good options to replace the kit lens by all accounts simon

10-27-2007, 04:58 PM	#3
Falcons Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Perth Photos: Gallery Posts: 669	Fully agree - the Pentax 16-45 is an absolute treasure of a lens.

10-27-2007, 05:42 PM	#4
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	I am continually surprised and impressed by the 16-45. In fact, I think the IQ even beats my DA 21, although I hate to admit it, seeing how I paid $150 more for the 21. A HUGE step up from the kit lens, or any other zoom I've used, for that matter.

10-27-2007, 06:07 PM	#5
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	I never got the kit lens, but I do have the 16-45 lens, and agree. With that said, I am pleasantly surprised at the 50-200 that I do have. That one is a keeper and a steal considering it is the other half of the kit lens combo.

10-27-2007, 11:03 PM	#6
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	I have a sharp 50-200 as well, but am a bit upset with the bokeh you get with it. Definitely a kit sort of lens.

10-29-2007, 07:15 PM	#7
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608	Originally posted by EddyinGA The 16-45 lens produces sharper, brighter and just overall better photographs. In fact, I've had a couple of folks tell me that they like it better than the DA* 16-50 (I'll have my opinion on that one in a few weeks). It is an extraordinarily good lens. So, again, if you're thinking about buying one and just can't get off the fence.... Do it and do it now. Thank you for entertaining my rant. Ed I have to agree with you there, Ed. I recently bought a 16-45, and love it. It's a very good lens. Mike

10-30-2007, 11:17 AM	#8
Buksikoma Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Hódmezővásárhely, Hungary Posts: 9	I must join in, 16-45 is truly amazing!

10-30-2007, 11:59 AM	#9
vievetrick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Easthampton - Massachusetts - USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,183	Have had t he 16-45 for about a year or two. It is buy far on the front of the camera most of the time. I have had a bit of LBA and thinking about getting the 16-50 but not as willing to part with my money as I would for a FA77. Time will tell but the 16-45 is for me a great, great lens.

10-30-2007, 12:56 PM	#10
ricosuave Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 298	does anyone have any opinions of 16-45 vs the Sigma 18-50/2.8 in terms of IQ?