Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85

Has anybody owned or used both? Or seen a comparison review?

I am thinking of buying one or the other. Obviously there is no need to point out that one has a longer range!

Thanks

G

That's me out then.

Welcome back George ... a passing visit or are you staying a while ?

There is a review of the DA16-85 on the American Pentax forum: link

Well, I think I might stick around. Pentax is definitely moving forward more rapidly under Ricoh than it did under Samsung, and I will be very interested to see how things develop. Also, I hope to have a bit more time on my hands this year.

G

The aperture of the Pentax 16-50 is considerably better,

The updated optics of the Pentax 16-85 are better, except at the widest most range. The reliability of the newer version is simply beyond compare. The WR of the newer version is also a plus

Thanks. It's clearly a good lens. The question is, does it produce better images than the 16-50? The increased range is of course a plus, but for me the variable (and slower) aperture cancel that advantage out. So it's really down to image quality, and the 16-50 I used to own was close to the Limiteds in that respect. I don't want to take a step backwards.

G

Has it been around long enough to comment on the reliability? In what way are the optics better? Both have WR.

Cheers

G

A thorough user review and comparison (with sample images) with the 16-50/18-135 here

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

"So as it is, at full retail, I'd recommend the 16-85 (unless you need the f/2.8 and beefier weather resistance) and if you can get the DA* for a good deal used for less than the 16-85 (as it's too new to have any used samples available), then I'd go for the DA*."

At the moment, a second-hand 16-50 at a good price looks as though it may be the right choice. I think a glass of Bowmore is required to assist the mulling process.

Cheers.

G

there is a lot of mixed reviews on the 16/50 i have just looked on dpreview and one person as said its a heap of junk anothere has said its not the best and the othere have said it is ok
where as the 16/85 is the total opposite they rave sbout it

but then the 16/50 is 7year old and the 16/85 is what abot 5 /6 month old not really been out long enough to find the problems yet

regards stu

Early 16-50's were plagued with SDM failures. I say 'early' because there seems to have been a fall off in complaints over time.

The US site has a list of serial numbers of lenses with failed SDM.

You seem to have found some very one-sided reviews. I know that early 16-50s had some AF motor problems, but the great majority of reports I have read were complimentary about the image quality.

I had one (before I dropped it), and could scarcely tell the difference between pictures taken with it and pictures taken with Limited lenses.

G

I have some 5k photographs with the newer 16-85 already. Whereas... The older 16-50 has failed me twice within two months of purchasing it, and also using it on a very "lightweight" scale.

Even seeing and using the newest off of the line run 16-50... It's just one of those lenses that can NEVER be carried around and used without worry of having it fail completely. The newer 16-85 is build considerably more durably and reliably, although those apertures are sad if not having ideal lighting

Good to see you around again George

Good to see you are still here!

G