16-45 to 16-50

Ive been using a 16-45 as my main lens for about 4 years now. Its taken some lovely images.

Ive just bought a 50-135 and i like it. So was contemplating another new purchase.

Is the 16-50 a worthwhile upgrade to the 16-45? (ill be buying second hand)

I was going to buy a couple more limiteds (have the 35) but think ill get more use out of the zoom.

The 16-45 is a very capable lens, and on may shots there will be very little difference between it and the 16-50, but that extra stop and range, the weather resistance and SDM focusing all add up to a big improvement (for me anyway). I don't have anything to back it up but I felt that the wide end was much better for me on the 16-50.

You do need to be wary of the potential for SDM failures (the 16-50 and 50-135 were the most prone to these), and possibly build a SDM replacement price into your second hand price calculations.

Hope that's of use

The DA16-45 is an excellent all-rounder. Personally I don't the bokeh that much, but otherwise is a very good lens.

The DA*16-50 is a different beast altogether. It's substantially heavier, has a lovely bokeh, and a very nice rendering. It does suffer from quite a bit of purple fringing - it's never a problem when shooting RAW with LR as it can all be handled post-process. (A bit of a problem when shooting JPG).

I am torn between the DA*16-50 and the DA17-70. I found the extra 20mm was very useful indeed. The DA17-70, I think, had the edge on sharpness (at f/4 it really was close to the FA50/1.4!!), is not as heavy, and has excellent bokeh, sharpness and contrast. There is a tiny something special about the DA*'s rendering compared to the DA17-70 - but it's a close call. (My DA*16-50 benefitted from a service at JPS - came back much improved). It was also very convenient having the same filter size on the DA17-70 and DA*50-135

The DA*50-135 is really astonishingly good, and there isn't a direct match at the lower end. The DA*16-50 is weather sealed, but the barrel extends when zooming (I like the relative compactness of the DA*50-135). As mentioned, SDM failures are a common issue.

Money wise, it's a tricky one. DA16-45 go for around £150, DA17-70 for around £300, and DA*16-50 above £500. The improvements are not proportional to the extra spend, alas

For an all-rounder, or a take-one-lens-out, the DA17-70 is superb.

But then for my regular kit, I have the (also astonishing) DA12-24 as well

So many lovely lenses
Matt

I too loved my 50-135 but just can't justify too many lenses and I'm probably going to have to let it go!
I have had two 16-50mm and two 17-70mm, both of the 17-70's have proved better for my usage though I much prefer the handling and general packaging of the 16-50mm, optically I have found the 16-50 to be soft pretty much everywhere at F2.8 and regarded it as an F4 lens in the end, maybe I got two sub par ones? The range of the 17-70 is very useful and it has a sharpness characteristic that suits my kind of photography (Landscape) where it is pretty evenly sharp right across the board. However if you are into more than Travel and Landscape photography and are likely to put portraiture into your remit then I would recommend the 16-50mm, as it does have a little sprinkling of the Pixie dust here (Sharp centre, soft corners). Whereas the 17-70 is a solid all-rounder the 16-50 is a good people lens, dovetails beautifully with the 50-135, no handling quirks, you get exactly what you get with the 50-135, great combination...

Mine was like that until I had it serviced
This shot, although at f/5.6, is demonstrative of the lens' capabilities.

Matt

I understand all the talk of softness at maximum aperture, but this is true of many fast aperture lenses - very few are perfect and stopping down half a stop makes a significant difference to sharpness, but they do offer the chance to get some images you may not have got otherwise. It sounds as though there may be issues with some softer copies (again not uncommon) but the overall characteristics of the 16-50 are still excellent - much closer to a Pro range lens (apart from the potential SDM issue).

This full-size image was taken at f6.3 and is a fair representation of the lens' abilities:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62460860@N05/15381627455/sizes/o/

Hence I talked of characteristics, I feel the 16-50 was designed that way, (Obviously I cannot possibly know this!) quite a few lenses, however are made to be a bit soft wide open in the corners as it helps give the magic pixie dust Portrait effect but stopped down it goes away. It's a characteristic not a flaw, being a landscaper however I do not want lenses with that characteristic, I don't want to be cropping out corners because they are softish, if someone is readying to drop a not inconsiderable sum on one of these lenses I just think they should be informed of this. The two I had were not as good as either of my 17-70's in the corners at any aperture but I tend to live between F8-11 and I think the 16-50 being an F2.8 lens, is at it's best at F5.6-8 so I'd not see much of that in my line of photography but if you need it then obviously it's a lot better at F2.8 than the 16-45 or the 17-70!

Thanks for the replies.

Im not sure what my kind of photography is classed as? I like to take photos of family, pets, holidays, outings etc.

I think a 16-50 is needed. Loads on ebay to choose from....

I also really like the build feel of the 50-135 and my 16-45 just doesnt have that.

I was also going to pick up a 18-135 along with a k3 as an alternative to the da*'s.

I find the 16-45mm sharpest wide open (i.e. f/4) only in the middle ranges, say 24-35mm. At either end it is much sharper at f/5.6. One nice thing about the 16-45mm is just good a close-up lens it is. I like that it uses 67mm filters because I often pair it with the 60-250mm, giving me a lightweight, consistent f/4, 67mm filter system.

YMMV

Michael