Views: 294682
Reviews: 43
|
I am not the owner of this lens however it was sent to me to help with the official in-depth review that Adam is about to publish very soon. Hence why you won't see any sample images other than my crop comparisons below ;)
BUT I wanted to share my experience with the lens since I'm not writing the actual review and it may be of some benefit to some of you :)
First Impressions and Build Quality
Not as big as I thought it would be, as the photos from Photokina and CP+ made it look a lot bigger. I thought it would dwarf the 16-50, especially with its "massive" hood, but that isn't the case. Here are some product photos taken to compare its size against both the DA* 16-50 and the 18-135 WR:
By themselves: 
By themselves, zoom fully extended:
Hoods reversed for storage: 
Hoods attached normally: 
Hoods attached, full zoom extension: 
As for the build itself, it's extremely well made and has an excellently tight build quality. Nothing rattles, shakes, jiggles, wobbles, etc. The zoom ring is tight as well - moreso than either the DA* 16-50 or the 18-135 and even at full extension with the hood attached there wasn't the slightest hint of lens creep in either direction ("slipping out" or "shrinking in").
I haven't tested the WR (shocker, I know ;) ), but I am confident it would do just fine here. I had it in a light drizzle, but we all know that doesn't count for a weather sealing test ;)
The hood is very well made and has an excellent feel to it. I think they used a different material to line the inside of it because it's matte black as you'd expect but it's the finest (by "fine" I mean smallest/thinnest/smoothest/etc.) material I've ever felt in a hood like this. Really impressed. And then the hood has the expected window for polarizer filter rotation.
Autofocus
Not much to say here - very quick and silent. The focus throw is a bit longer than I expected (longer than the 18-135 by quite a bit), but it didn't seem to have an impact on focus speed (so....faster DC motor?). So for it's intended purpose - for a landscape/all-in-one zoom lens it's not a hindrance in the slightest as I've noticed.
Image Quality
What you've been waiting for, huh? ;) I took comparison shots and merged them into single files to make it easier to view. All the images are labeled below using the three lenses mentioned above.
Also, they are all 100% crops taken from the same position, on a tripod, using 2s timer, and with both center and their associated corner crops.
16mm/18mm, wide open 
16/18mm, f/5.6 
16mm/18mm, f/8.0
Moving up to 50mm to test the center (ish) of both the 16-85 and 18-135 and the long end of the DA* 16-50.
50mm, wide open
50mm, f/5.6
50mm, f/8.0
And now I compared both the last two DC WR zooms at their max zoom, and then upres'ed the 16-85 image to match the 18-135 to see how that would compare.
85/135mm, wide open
85/135mm, f/8.0
 [SIZE=5]
Aperture Range[/SIZE]
This chart should help:
Apologies for the lack of uniformity in the styles - I used the same chart from the 18-135 review that I wrote but I simply (and quickly) added the 16-85 info using MS Paint for this user review.
Conclusion
My down and dirty assessment? Many people bitched and complained about Pentax losing their ability to make lenses because it was "only f3.5-5-6" and thus it was going to suck as a way over priced kit lens.
It's good to see Pentax still has it's A-game as an optics company, because this lens has impressed the hell out of me. Way more expensive than the 18-135 because it deserves to be - significantly better optics and the 16mm vs 18mm is a critical difference for landscape shooters. Critical. And it's not much larger as well.
If you can afford it, then I'd recommend the 16-85 over the 18-135 100% of the time. Without any reservation.
As for the 16-50, that's a tough one. It appears sharper wide open than the DA* (by quite a margin) but the 16-50 pulls ahead when you stop down. It seems the 16-85 is damn near its peak from wide open, which is impressive. And while perhaps not the best choice at times if you need max resolution, the DA* 16-50 still does offer that constant f/2.8 across the zoom range. So as it is, at full retail, I'd recommend the 16-85 (unless you need the f/2.8 and beefier weather resistance) and if you can get the DA* for a good deal used for less than the 16-85 (as it's too new to have any used samples available), then I'd go for the DA*.
Regardless, this means only one thing - the 16-85 is a fantastic optic (have you noticed the Z-E-R-O amount of CA any any aperture?!) and I can't wait to see what Ricoh has in store for any future Pentax lenses (DA* 16-50 MK II, DFA* 24-70, etc.). Bravo, Pentax. Bravo.
As for the scoring, I gave it a 10 in sharpness although it lagged a hair behind the DA* at f/8.0 because of it's unbelievable corner performance, especially compared to the other two. I'm blown away. Ditto for Aberrations (a level of performance I've never seen before, from any lens).
Overall I gave it a 9/10 because yea, it's expensive and f/5.6 rather than constant f/4.
Bottom Line - Will I buy it?
So am I going to buy one? Right now no, for no other reason than I don't have a need for it as my photography has become less about adventure/outdoor pursuits and more about family portraiture (and I'm in the process of streamlining my kit and reducing overlap between lenses).
BUT I will find myself in a deployable manner once again about this time next year, and if there's no DA* 16-50 replacement, I can honestly tell you that I will seriously consider using the DA 16-85 DC WR for my next deployment photojournalism series as a standard lens. It's very possible, because it's that versatile and capable.
I hope you found my user review helpful! :D
|
-Heie
-Heie