16 - 45 versus 16 - 50

Hello all.

Sorry about the 'crude' Topic Title, but I suppose it accurately sums up the dilemma in my little head.

My local Jessops contact (and Pentax owner/advocate) recommended the 16-45 lens some while back. However, we also have the 16-50 lens with its f2.8 aperture and pretty gold ring to consider too. The specifications for the 16-50 lens look very impressive, but there is a huge price difference between the two: £199 v £475.

Also, I notice that the 16-45 has macro capability, and I have no macro lens as yet, so perhaps this might be the humble and prudent choice.

What does the panel recommend?

Kind regards.

Alan Lowe-Jones.

---

Camera: K20D.
Lenses: Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4 SDM, Pentax DA* 16-50 SDM, Pentax 18-250 SMC DA, Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG macro.
Flash: Pentax AF360.

16-45 doesn't have macro, and it has almost the same minimum focusing distance as the 16-50.

For something in between the two budgets (and weights), for use with a K20D at least*, I can recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

Info and reviews:

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/index.html

http://www.photozone.de/pentax

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28... (Nikon fit verson)

* I had bad AF problems with this lens on my K10D, not with my K20D.

---

~Pete

Cannot comment on the 16-50 but have used the 16-45 extensively in the last month. It dos`nt have macro focussing but it is a superb lens, The extra 5mm on the 16-50 is probably irrelevent, you can always take an extra step. So for me it would come down to the extra aperture stop, is it realy worth £276? only you can decide that one. For me i would use the saving for a good 50mm prime. Come to think of it that is exactly what i did.

---

K5 + 8mm-500mm zooms and primes
Please feel free to play with any images I post.
My flickr: link

Also the 16-45mm is smaller and lighter than the 16-50mm.

Quality difference will be virtually irrelevant, only the stop difference in speed is really significant.

---

Best regards, John

I thought the 16-50 is weather sealed as well.

---

K20D and a substantial user manual to wade through

True, the 16-50mm is weather sealed.

---

Best regards, John

Thanks, Pete & davex.

Ultimately, I guess my choice may well be the less expensive 16-45 lens, although I will look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 reviews too.

As for the macro specification of the 16-45, which you both probably quite rightly say it doesn't have, would you believe that I got my information from the official Pentax website. Here I downloaded and printed a pdf of the 16-45's specifications! Presumably, it's their mistake? Ooops.

Again, many thanks.

Alan.

---

Camera: K20D.
Lenses: Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4 SDM, Pentax DA* 16-50 SDM, Pentax 18-250 SMC DA, Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG macro.
Flash: Pentax AF360.

Thanks, John & Diatribe too.

Wouldn't it be nice if money just grew on trees?!

Alan.

---

Camera: K20D.
Lenses: Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4 SDM, Pentax DA* 16-50 SDM, Pentax 18-250 SMC DA, Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG macro.
Flash: Pentax AF360.

I believe a 16-45 will be up for grabs at a reasonable price shortly in cassifieds - very tempting for me, but I have given my heart to a 14mm....

---

K20D and a substantial user manual to wade through

there is also the DA 17-70 the little bit of extra reach is handy with portraits.
The lens is more expensive then the 16-45 and it has the same sharpeness but the 17-70 and the 16-50 don't have so much Chromatic Aberrations.
Some users say it also have a better bokeh but I don't have those lenses so cant compare them really.
The 16-45 is still a superb good lens for that money though

---

Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

I too would say consider the Pentax 17-70, partially weather sealed, SDM (only!) and a superb lens. I have no experience of the other two but I am really happy with my 17-70.

One other area to consider might be build quality. Although I haven't actually used a 16-45 I have handled one and I would say the robustness of the 16-50 is definitely superior.
I guess you would/should expect it to be given the weather/dust sealing and the price difference. Plus with the more substantial build comes a weight penalty of course.

---

Regards Huw

flickr

Absolutely love the SMC-DA 17-70
Almost 100% on the K20D!
But the 16-45 is lighter and cheaper...
Matt

---

http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

The term "macro" isn't strictly defined, so perhaps Pentax is entitled to use it for the 16-45 after all. It is capable of 0.26x magification and a 28cm minimum focusing distance. (That's 28cm from the subject to the sensor).

Pentax 16-50: 0.21x, 30cm.

Tamron 17-50: 1:4.5, 27cm.

Basically, all these lenses can focus very closely if that's what you're interested in - significantly closer than the FA 50mm f1.4, by the way.

---

~Pete

Thank you all, again.

Wonderful advice, which reinforces my own findings, and leaves me to make that big decision some time in the near future. Do I go for the
16-45, the 17-70, or the 16-50?

I undoubtedly have more homework ahead of me yet!

Is there a suspicion that lens manufacturers set out to create these dilemmas in order to extract more money from us, or am I just being overly cynical?!

Many thanks to all.

Alan.

---

Camera: K20D.
Lenses: Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4 SDM, Pentax DA* 16-50 SDM, Pentax 18-250 SMC DA, Pentax-M 50mm f1.7, Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG macro.
Flash: Pentax AF360.