FA 20-35mm or DA 16-45 on digital

Folks,

I am considering selling my FA20-35 to fund a purchase of a 16-45mm. I am finding that the 20-35mm is not quite wide enough for my landscape work. However I'm reluctant to part with the 20-35mm as it is a makes a superb general-use lens.

If the DA 16-45 gives a similar quality in the 20-35mm range on digital then I will probably make the switch. Has anyone done a comparrison between these two lenses?

Also what do reckon the 20-35mm FA is worth in EX+ condition. Bearing in mind it's rarity on Ebay.

Not quite a direct answer however I've got the Tokina 20-35mm F2.8 and I've also found it not really wide enough on an APS-C DSLR. The 16-45 will be considerably better (effectively 24mm at the wide end instead of 30mm) however a lot depends on how much use you made of your 20-35 at the wide end when used on film bodies.

I almost bought the 16-45 (and I still probably will) however as I tended to use the wide end of my 20-35 most I bought a Sigma 10-20mm instead as it's effectively a 15-30mm when used on my DSLR.

How do you find the quality of the Sigma? My other consideration was the new Tamron 11-18mm.

I've been very impressed with it. It's very sharp, especially at the widest setting and F8 or F11, the AF is good (not that AF is ever really a problem with lenses this wide) as is the build quality. For the cash it's excellent value. The Pentax 12-24 looks a good lens too, but it's nearly double the price. I've not seen any direct reviews between the two lenses however in the reviews I have read the Sigma is at least as sharp as the Canon & Nikon equivalents so I doubt the Pentax would be noticeably better.

There's probably not a great deal of difference between the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 - in terms of sharpness.

But sharpness isn't the only criteria for a lens. What I can say is that the flare resistance of the Pentax 12-24 is almost unbelievable I've been extremely pleased with the results so far.
(But then it wasn't 200% the price, but 150% from Germany )

And then, the DA 16-45 is most definitely sharper than the 12-24. I only have praise for the 16-45

Matt

I've had no flare problems with the Sigma either. I've plenty of Pentax lenses to compare it with and it's not noticeably worse than any of them. I've also not had any CA problems with it either.

If the DA 16-45 was a woman I would marry it! Is that a recommendation?

hmmn....I'd, maybe...recommend...clozapine...and a nice huggie jacket....come on..put the camera down...come see what we've got for you in the quiet room....
javascript:emoticon('')
heh heh heh!

ps...she seems a little too wide, at the bottom end, for my taste

The 16-45mm is a very fine lens and I use it pretty much all the time.

The 20-35mm I have never used, but I don't think it's wide enough for digital and it might not be quite as good because it was not designed with digital in mind. There may well be a definite advantage to using digital lenses on the DSLRs.

Personally, I think the SMC coating + the additional anti-ghosting etc. coatings of the DA range of lenses produces a superior result, requiring much less post-processing, to other third party lenses. These third party products will always be cheaper than equivalent system branded lenses, else they'll not sell at all.

The SMC coating is legendry for its anti-flare, colour definition, and contrast characteristics. My opinion is that the coating of any lens adds that extra 'polish' (for want of a better description) to the final image (film or digital) and Pentax's DA range reign's supreme for digital in my book. Even some of the older Pentax branded lenses made by Tokina and Cosina etc. are much improved with the addition of the SMC coating.

The 16-45mm DA is a very fine lens and well worth the £300 I paid for mine from www.parkcameras.com. I have yet to give my 12-24mm DA any real exercise but I fully expect it to be equally as good.

As for current pricing of your 20-35mm, check the on-line camera shop prices first, ebay prices will generally be 2/3 to 3/4 of that price, sometimes less, depending on the seller, and more importantly, depending on the right buyers, those willing to pay what it's actually worth.

Ok you guys have convinced me.

The 20-35mm FA is going on Ebay. My replacement 16-45mm DA is on order.

If Pentax ever goes full frame then I'll be kicking myself.

I haven't quite made up my mind about selling my ATX-Pro 20-35mm F2.8 as I'm still hoping Pentax will go full-frame at some point.

Pentax won't be going full-frame. That's what the D645 is for. If they themselves thought they would go full-frame, they wouldn't have brought out so many DA lenses. In a couple of months time there will be 13 DA lenses. And hopefully next year there will be a long one, too.

Full-frame Pentax is a fantasy of a few people who find it difficult to multiply by 1.5.

G

Thanks for all your responses. I received my 16-45mm a couple of weeks ago and have been busy testing it out against the 20-35mm FA.

I have found that across the entire zoom range that the 16-45mm lens is slightly softer than the 20-35mm at f4. At f8 and above I could see no discernable difference. I'm going to stick with the 16-45mm because I generally stop down for landscapes and need the wideangle capability.

My 20-35mm FA is now on ebay if anyone is interested.

I've got the 16-45 and it's one of the best lenses in the stable, as far as I can tell. It goes well with an old 45-125 (which serves the same function as an 80-200 on a full-frame camera) and gives me excellent range for the *st D.