Lens for hillwalking DA* 16-50

I just got a tax rebate of £715 so am looking to get a new lens for my k5. The sharpness of the kit lens has never seemed too great when I have been taking photos in the past so I would like to get a decent one and then buy a couple of limited lenses in the future I was thinking about a 16-50mm DA* but all of the negative press about the SDM puts me off somewhat not to mention the talk about soft corners (at 16mm) and chromatic abberation.

I am looking for a weather sealed lens preferably so that I can still use it while hill walking when it rains. How big a difference is there between the weather resistance on the WR range compared to the DA* ? I know the build quality is better with DA* but is the weather sealing better as well?

I have also thought about the 18-135mm WR but some reviews say the results are not as sharp but then again it is half the price and more mm.

I see that srs are doing the 16-50 in the sale for £599 was thinking of getting it through them as I have had good service in the past there.

Any advice is welcome

Ask yourself first if you really need a lens with the quality of the DA*'s, are you intending to run off large prints or submit work to picture libraries, enter competitions and such? If not then then the 18-55WR would probably suit your needs, the DA+ lenses do have better weather sealing so if you intend to have the camera over your shoulder while its raining cats and dogs then it would definitely be the better option.

As for bad press, I've had my 16-50 for three years or more and not had any problems or noticed the "faults" you mention.

I'll also give SRS the thumbs up too, I'be been buying from them for over 5 years.

EDIT: text changed before some bright spark tells me Pentax don't make a 19-55WR

For hillwalking the 18-135 is vey good. it is lightweight, has a good range, weatherproof, and produces good pics.

I think many reviewers these days are looking for something to say! Others are noticing differences that no one else can.

While not my intention to enter any competitions it never hurts to have the option, I already have the 18-55WR and just have never liked it as much (IQ wise) as my Pentax-A 50mm but I would like WR and a more flexible focal length and as for cats and dogs sometimes it feels more like elephants and rhinos (small ones admittedly)!

The most thorough review I've seen of the 18-135 is the Photozone.de one. They complain mostly about the edge sharpness, and certainly my brief experience with it bore out their comments. Unless I was unlucky and had a particularly bad one, you'd have to be pretty undiscerning to miss this particular flaw, especially with buildings at the longer end of the range.

That said, at the shorter end of the range, I found it pretty good, and as many have commented, the handling is a delight.

For hillwalking, it's probably a lot better than it is for towns, since the soft edges will be less obvious than when there are buildings at the edges of the frame.

It's also a lot less money now than it was a few months ago. Around 300 quid it's not bad value, whereas when it was around 400, it was way too expensive for the quality.

The thing is, almost any zoom you buy will fall short of the IQ of the Pentax-A 50mm - this is a very bad comparison to pick, since you'll always be disappointed.

The bottom line is, if you're fussy about edge-sharpness, the 18-135 probably won't cut it for you. If you're not, it probably will, especially at the shorter end, where it's at its best.

TBH, if you're really considering spending 700 quid, the 2mm at the short end of the 16-50 may well be more important, especially on the hills.

For the 16-50, you only need to spend 600 at the moment, in any case!

Including the 16-50mm DA* ? :-/

Well, £599 ... thankfully!

I don't know. Why don't you hire one for a few days?

Get a Tamron 17-50mm and a rainsleeve.

Or a Pentax 17-70mm - they have a gasket on the mount and that is where water is going to get in, if anywhere. (Presuming you remember to take care, and in any case you shouldn't expose a DA* or WR lens to monsoon conditions and expect there to be no chance of water ingress, especially when zooming).

For the price of the 16-50mm you could practically buy one of each of the above!

I was after 16-50 but the price is steep considering the alternatives. I haven't used the 17-70 but heard is excellent, had the 17-50 Tamron and other than AF speed on an ancient D40 IQ was near good prime levels.

For whatever is worth for my mountain biking/hiking I am going for a mirrorless camera. Unless Pentax comes out with one in the next few months I am getting a gx1+ the 14-42 X lens. The bulk of a dslr even a relatively compact one is starting to get to me. The price of the combo is almost the same as a new 16-50.

Btw there was a second hand one on sale in the classifieds here.

I hired a 16-50 from SRS, and own a Tamron 17-50/2.8.

The SRS copy had dead SDM (although used with screw-drive on my backup K100D)... Also, I found the IQ unspectacular.

The 17-50 is not as well built, but has it licked at any aperture for IQ (admittedly not at 16mm...). At f/5.6-8 in the middle of the range, the Tamron is near indistinguishable on my K10D from a 35mm-odd prime.

Just my opinion - suggest you hire before you buy!

I ended up getting the Tamron 17-50, FA 50mm, DA 40 Ltd and a battery grip to make the K5 a little bigger for my hands Will hopefully get a 15mm Ltd in the future aswell for the wide angle landscape shots (or maybe a 21?). Not sure lol!

...as the title says - "Lens for hillwalking is the DA* 16-50"

If I can only take one lens with me, this is the one! I appreciate the SDM failure issues that people have had (I've not experienced this - yet!!), but in terms of a top quality all-rounder I don't think you can beat it.

I wonder whether you have a poor copy of the 18-55mm lens? I know this will not equal the sharpness of a prime like the Pentax-A 50mm, but I have two of the 18-55 kit lenses, plus my son has a third one and all of them are superb. I've taken lots of landscapes with these lenses and not noticed any particular lack of sharpness, even when blown up fairly large. It's a great walkabout lens and I would think very long and hard about spending £600 on a lens with similar zoom range to replace any of my kit lenses.

Regards
David

I used my 18-55 Mk1 as my main walkabout lens for a long time.

Now I'm using the 17-70 for the same purposes.

It's early days, and I've not done a formal comparison, but although I never had any complaints about the 18-55, the 17-70 does seem subjectively substantially better.

Not that I'd rule out the possibility of the old 4P rule (perceived performance in proportion to price) raising its head, but as the novelty wears off I'll certainly take no prisoners if I find it wanting.

It's all a bit moot now, though - the OP has made his choice.

Don't forget the excellent 16-45mm f4 lens. This is still available and is much lighter than the 16-50mm f2.8, so maybe more useful as a hiking lens.