16-85 vs 16-45

I would be grateful to hear the comments of users with experience of both of the aforementioned lenses.

I can see the possible advantages of the 16-85 being WR and having longer reach.
I note that some have said the build quality is superior to the 16-45.

However I would like to know about IQ and AF performance.

I can't see lots being written about the 16-85 - has the take up been low due to the wait for FF?

I have seen positive comments from owners of the 16-45 but it has long been discontinued and I would have thought that the 16-85 ( which I do possess) was in an entirely different league . It is WR, covers a greater range and is pretty sharp across the frame and I have the impressions that most owners of this lens are delighted with it.. I would think that a SH copy of the 16-45 would be much cheaper, but you get what you pay for. You could however be happy with it.

Thank you 'miles500' for your comments about the 16-85.

I currently have the 16-45 but was wondering if the 16-85 is a worthwhile upgrade.
I have other lenses which cover the 45-85 range, so it is a case of weighing up WR benefits, focus speed/accuracy and IQ. The wide to moderate telephoto convenience is another factor.

I have both as well as the 18-135. The 16-45 I found to be very good but tended to flare badly. The flare really got me down in ultra-bright countries like Thailand.
The 16-85 is a lovely lens as long as you get a good copy. My first was DOA as it could not focus at all. The replacement was fine until I noticed that when zoomed in it was decentered, so I got a third copy. This copy is a stunner sharpness wise and can take almost flare free shots against the light. The downside is that I noticed on holiday in Vietnam that at hot temperatures the barrel sticks at about 28mm and you have to rotate past it with it clicking - not good at all. There are some occasions where it does not seem to focus on anything despite me focussing on the subject carefully and the shutter speed being fast enough. I cannot understand that one. If it were front of back focussing I could understand it - but nothing is in focus.
Regarding the hot temperatures - my brother bought the lens (at the same time as me) on my recommendation and found it to be fine - until his August holiday to Seville! He had massive problems with its focussing in hot temperatures (40c each day) - to the point he has considered leaving Pentax altogether He frequently could not get it to focus at all - being unable to take shots as a result. Once back in the UK and he says it works fine - so it does seem a lens that has issues, but when it's working it has a lovely image quality.
It's sharp across the image at all focal lengths. Mine at the 85 end is stunningly sharp. It has varying CA depending on the focal length which is a pain. I have three LR presets. One for 16mm, one for 50mm and one for 85mm. On newer versions (I am on LR3) of lightroom this is not a problem as it will fix the CA easily.

Another oddity I noticed the other day was that for the first time I stopped it down to F16 as I wanted lots of depth of field. The results were really poor - massively worse than F8. At F8 it's very sharp and at F16 it looked quite blurred - shutter speed was fine on both as it was a totally sunny day in Paris.

I had both loved all 3 copies of the 16-45 I owned, Optically I don`t notice any difference to image quality with 16-85.
16-85 for me wins on extra length and WR as a good walkabout lens for hillwalking.
I now regret buying the 16-85 though as its a fairly heavy investment and never gets on the camera now as I always use the DA* lenses in that focal range.
Was going to post images but cannae be bothered downsizing...sorry

Thanks Gavin and Bruce for your comments too.
Not yet stacking up to make an overwhelming case to upgrade.

Diffraction?

Sounds more like shake really .... what were the other settings on the F16 shots? And what was the focal length? Its hard to associate diffraction with the loss of clarity as described ('really poor, massively worse') . F16 is certainly into diffraction territory, but its a fairly gradual descent I think.

can't say i have seen a bad report on the 16-45 and it does not come up for sale very often so that to says to me people are still happy with it even after all this time. you can always carry a rain cover it does not take up much room then treat yourself to a Sigma 10-20

I had the 16-45 and found it to be an excellent lens with great IQ. I replaced it with the 16-85 for WR mainly. The 16-85 is also excellent and gives nice sharp, pleasing results. Wish I had also kept the 16-45 though because it's small and light and great for traveling when luggage space and weight is limited, the 16-85 is bigger and heavier.

One of the shots was 400th sec at 16mm I have been shooting for 35 years and can hold a camera steady enough to get very low shutter speeds. Others were around 160th to down to 60th at 16mm. They were in bright Paris sunlight. The shots taken at the same time at F8 look like they've been shot using a prime.

The other day I took shots in the back garden of my niece in her prom dress at 16mm. 80th sec and nothing is in focus. Maybe my K-x's fault I don't know. My K-5 died in Vietnam so I can't test with that.

FWIW I think my 16-45 is a fantastic lens - it was just the lack of reach and the flare that got to me. Most of my shots over the last six years were on it.

Some interesting behaviour being described in the latest postings.
How do users find the DC motor - does that aid faster (and more accurate) focussing?

Can´t honestly say the 16-85 focuses any better than 16-45.
Some of the winter shots (the one with horse statue and the forest and the brewery door were using 16-45 and KS-2) in my gallery.
Personally I would not "upgrade" again until the price of 16-85 tumbles

Images below all using 16-45...
.

Like others who have posted here I have the 16-45, 16-85 and 18-135. The 16-85 feels a much sturdier lens than the 16-45, my well-used copy of which feels decidedly wobbly, especially when fully extended (at 16mm)

The 16-45 does render nicely though, but 45 mm is quite short. Now I have WR at 16mm available, I use the 16-85 most of the time, and then primes for speed.

All the photos taken last Sunday in this thread
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/york-micklegate-soapbox-challenge--august...
were with the 16-85.
I do have both and prefer the 16-85. Not only does it have a useful longer reach with no apparent loss in quality, the zoom of the 16-45 goes out to wide angle that can cause issues with the inbuilt flash (on those cameras that have it.)
The 16-45 is quite an old design now being one of the first designed by Pentax for APSC, but the results from it are fine. I guess in the end the best one to obtain would be based on its cost/usefulness to you. For a single walk about lens I find the 16-85 is hard to beat.