Advice from users - Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4


ronyzmbow

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 05:14
A shop not far from me is clearing old stock of brand new Pentax lenses and I have a chance to buy a brand new Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4 for a very attractive price. Will I see a big improvement in image quality over the 18-55 kit lens? Should i buy this lens? Advice from users -

Jimd

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 07:17
I've never used the kit lens so can't give you a comparison but when I bought my K5 I did a bit of research and decided on the 16-45 and the 55-300 instead. Both give superb results.

col55555ine

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 07:23
Some people rave about this lens, i found no improvement over my 18-55 Wr,
depends if you have a good copy of 18-55 lens, but you dont state if its a mark1 or mark2...
I returned my copy of 16-45 as was a bad copy.
Pot luck with quailty is suppose, but this is the same for all makes..
I would go and test it in the shop.
k-5 IIs, Pentax 60-250, 17-70, 100macro WR, 50mm F2,
AF50 F1.4, Siggy 10-20, Siggy 100-300 F4, ..Pentax Af 160 ring flash

exevalley

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 07:45
I had one but found it always feel a bit clumsy to me, slight improvement over the 18-55wr but you have to pixie peep, bottom line if its around the £170 mark buy it, try it, if you don't like it you can always sell it on and not lose anything.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/exevalley/

johnriley

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 08:31
It is a better lens and well worth having for a slight increase in quality, especially at the edges, and a slightly wider wide angle. They sell quickly second hand.

Perhaps you could share where this shop is so others could take advantage of any offers?
Best regards, John

LennyBloke

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 08:39
I found it a significant improvement over the 18-55 (V1) - those extra 2mm at the wide-end are worth having, and the constant aperture is nice to have.
LennyBloke

gartmore

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 09:09
I found no improvement over my Mk 1 18-55 but do enjoy the extra width and the constant aperture. It does tend to exhibit a bit of purple fringing at the edges if you push it e.g. bare branches against a bright sky at 16mm.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

DrOrloff

stub

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 09:58
I found only a slight improvement over the 18 - 55 WR. Though If I had known this when I bought it. Personally, I wouldn't have.
K-1Gripped K-1 ungripped K-5ii K7 Various lenses

Stuart..

Ratcatcher

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 10:11
IMO well worth the buy at a good price you wont regret it I have had mine from K10,K20 and now k5.
Gives me excellent results.
Richard

K5 + Penta DA 18-135, Pentax 55-300, Pentax A-50mm F1.7, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Tamron SP90 DI Macro
Manfrotto 190XPROB-804RC2 Head,
Samsung Flash Unit.


link Flickr
link PPG

gwing

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 11:11
I found the 16-45 a lot better optically than the 18-55W and if you are using it as part of a 2 lens setup the extra 2mm at the wide end is useful, as a single lens walk about I prefer the 18-55 range.

My biggest dislike on the 16-45 was its mechanical feel and proportions and (unless it is raining) prefer the Tamron 17-50 2.8 to both the above.

andrewk

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 12:21
I did seriously consider buying a 16-45mm lens a couple of years back but in the end didn't - largely because the anecdotal evidence of its ability was so mixed. It seems that nothing has changed.

About half the posters in this thread seem to think it better or much better than the 18-55mm kit and the other half notice little or no difference. Maybe both sides are right and the difference is due to sample variation in both lenses.

From the testing I've done, I suspect that I have a good or very good sample of the kit lens. It is as good as any prime I have from f/8 onwards - and close at f/5.6. The primes are, though, 2 or 3 stops faster - so well worth keeping and using in low light or when I want the minimum depth of field. The search for a better kit lens seems to me a bit like the search for the Holy Grail and I've now given up on it.

Andrew
Flickr photostream

Mannesty

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 13:03
The DA16-45mm 1:4 is optically superior to any of the available 'kit' zooms having a similar range, and it maintains a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. The kit lenses don't.

If you buy, you will notice a difference . . . eventually .
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 25/02/2013 - 13:03

tigershoot

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 22:17
I have had two DA18-55Mk2's and both were hopeless at the edge. In fact my second copy was infuriatingly bad towards the edge. (The first was rubbish and was replaced not long after I got it). I then got a 16-45 from a forum member here. The difference is massive. I can only assume from reading these comments that maybe I had bad copies of the 18-55mk2 and a superb copy of the 16-45. My brother has both the 18-55WR and the 16-45 and his 16-45 doesn't seem a good copy but he is happy with his 18-55WR. When I got my K-5 kit I tried out the 18-55WR (not a very comprehensive test - I was more curious) and it didn't seem a patch on the 16-45 - so back in the box it went and has never been used since.
K3ii, K-5, K-x, DA150-450mm, DA16-85WR, DA16-45, DA18-55WR, DA18-135WR, DA35 F2.4, M100mm F4 Macro, DA55-300mm, FA50mm 1.4, AF360 Flash, AF540 Flash

Blythman

Link Posted 25/02/2013 - 22:31
ronyzmbow wrote:
A shop not far from me is clearing old stock of brand new Pentax lenses and I have a chance to buy a brand new Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4 for a very attractive price. Will I see a big improvement in image quality over the 18-55 kit lens? Should i buy this lens? Advice from users -

Why do you want one? They'll both be very similar between 18mm and 45mm at f8.

I've got them both and never use either.
I started of with the 18-55 DAL.
Upgraded to the 16-45.
Decided that wasn't wide enough so bought a Sigma 10-20 (and then a 12-24)
But wanted WR so bought a 18-55 WR, which I only used when the weather was suspect.
But then I didn't want to be changing between that and either the 50-200 WR, or the 50-135, or the 60-250 in dodgy weather, so bought an 18-135 WR

So, if you don't work out why you want a lens, you can just keep on spending.

Incidentally, I think I need the Tamron 17-50. The f2.8 would be very handy in low light. Its been on my wanted list for the last 12 months but I'm trying to resist, as there are other lenses I want too.
Alan


PPG
Flickr
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.