16-45. Wow

I just wanted to say Wow.

I took my 16-45 out for the first time this weekend. I don't have any direct comparison shots between it and the 18-55 MKI which I was using before, but TBH I don't need them.

The level of detail, colour, contrast and near total lack of vignetting even at 16mm F4 is astounding.

Anyone on the fence, get one while they are still around!

I'm rather impressed with mine as well. Was undecided between this, the sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50 but one came up cheap on another forum so I grabbed it.
Took the lens to a firework display last night and even though it was my first try at fireworks I think they came out well.

I just bought the big brother 16-50... and I am really impressed.

After all my considerations regarding sharpness, detail, colour, and general IQ, (which leaded onto only buying primes...) I had to buy the DA* because of work committments.

What a lens this is. I have no idea how it compares to the 16-45 which I have never even tried, but I am really really surprised by the quality of this lens.

Hope you enjoy your new toys, I'll enjoy mine!!!

Nathan

I never had any real problem with the 18-55 MKI, I thought it was a very good lens for its class (and by all accounts it is).

I am amazed at how obvious the difference is even without pixel peeping. The 16-45 is just in another league. At £200 you just can't go wrong.

Are there any sites with high res samples from the 16-45?I have been looking but failed to find much.

try this review.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_16-45_4_p15/page4.asp

it's fairly recent and shows how the 16-45 performs on a K10D as opposed to the *istD which was the best available when it came out.

I took this the other day while just trying to see how close it would focus.
This is only 1/3 of the original size though.

Comparing shots of the same scenes, I didn't find enough difference between my 16-45 and 18-55 II to justify keeping the 16-45. I replaced it with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8, mainly to get a lot of extra speed over the 18-55 without having to carry a set of prime lenses.

I don't think a 1:2.8 lens can be fairly compared to any 1:4 lens, even if it is Tamron v Pentax

It is worth comparing lenses when they cover a similar focal length range because people will be trying to decide, amongst other factors, what speed lens they want for that range. The lenses may be closely comparible at medium apertures anyway.

The main comparison is with the 16-45 F4 versus the 18-55 F3.5-5.6. Mongoose obviously reckons there is a big difference, but those who don't find that may want to switch to a more radically different lens (like a faster one, for example) to make a more major difference to their photography to justify the extra expense and size of a "better" lens.

It probably deppends on what you use the lens for. My standard zoom spends most of its time between max wide angle and 30mm. The 18-55 was fine at ~30mm and F10, but 18 wasn't quite wide enough and my 18-55 tends to vignette at 18 even stopped down.


I feel that lenses should be compared within a price range. The Tamron and Sigma F2.8 lenses aren't much more expensive than the Pentax F4. Until recently they were the same price.

I have the 16/45 which I think is a wonderful piece of kit on my K20....but the 18/55 @ 18 /F22 knocks spots of it,maybe it's just a very good one I've got but the difference is amazing,as it's always been said the Pentax kit lens is the best around!....I don't know what the 18/55 11 is like!

My first test on 16mm (Pentax 16-45mm)

http://www.photomalaysia.com/photography/showphoto.php/photo/28189/cat/500/ppuse...

That's odd, but maybe you have a superb 18-55mm and a below par 16-45mm!

No lens delivers its best sharpness or resolution at f22 because of diffraction effects. The best apertures are usually around two or three stops down from open aperture, often f8 or so. The better the lens the more dramatic the fall off at f22 will appear to be.

by F22 I would expect all modern lenses to be diffraction limited and therefore to perform almost identically.