Pentax 16-45mm

I had the 16-45, sold it and then got another. I take quite a few indoor shots and 16mm makes all the difference (that's why you got 24mm and 28mm lenses in old money.) Also, the quality is better across the frame and I like the contrasty results it gives. Stick with it!

Tony

I'm not convinced there is much to choose between any current Pentax lens for centre frame sharpness at moderate apertures. They are all good. The difference shows at the edges and wide open.

Primarily to try out my long awaited FA 31, a couple of weeks ago I tested all my lenses by taking shots of a skin lotion bottle with a lot of small print on it, using available light, f8, camera on a tripod with remote release. The 18-55 WR and 16-45 were among the other lenses I used. The result was a damp squib...however much I enlarged them they all looked equally sharp.

Since then I've put my new baby to some real world use and it is starting to show it's worth...thank goodness

Been playing with my 16-45 find it a bit odd that at 16mm the lens is longer than at 45mm...

Ummmm ?????????

Yes the zoom extends at the wide end, not (as you'd expect) the long end. Absolutely rubbish, but you get used to it.

Yeah thought it was a bit strange!

It's the lens that stays on my GX-20 for most of the time. My travel kit, usually the 16-45, Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 and the 55-200mm kit lens.

I've found it to be a very capable performer (better than the Mk1 18-55 kit) on the GX20 and certainly more so than on my earlier GX10. A feature I've often found useful over time is the near-macro focusing which of course the kit lens lacks.

The lens has it's foibles, but IMO it's definately a worthy upgrade. It's testimony to it's overall quality that it's been in production for so long. Pentax must have sold many thousands over the years.

I've had the 16-45mm for about a year, 24-90mm for slightly longer, and 18-55mm came with my K20D early 2009. My brief observations are that the 16-45mm is the sharpest of the three (24-90 almost as good), but the 24-90 gives a slightly richer colour. The 18-55 is not a bad lens at all, but compared with the 16-45 it can be slightly softer around the edges and occasionally suffers from flare at wide apertures; mine's now basically redundant. On balance the 16-45 gets most use as my city walkabout where the extra width comes in handy, 24-90 for country and coast (unless I'm looking for wider shots in mountains when it's the 16-45). Both the latter seem a bit flimsy (e.g. movement in barrel when fully extended) but not to the point of affecting image quality. I'd recommend the 16-45; if I hadn't already bought the 24-90 I might have gone for a 17-70 instead, but the two lenses seem to complement each other quite well.

Is that a comment for me ?

Well having recently purchased another 16-45, I can only conclude that my first copy was below par because my 'new' one is very, very impressive indeed and certainly a step up from the Mark 2 18-55.

Dave

Whilst I love my 16-45mm I think I have gone beyond its limits with the K-5, It just can't cope with the resolution demands of the K-5. It's still great with my K10D/K20D, but the sharpness tail-off to the edges is noticable on the K-5, even at F8. However, it is not surprising really, as it was the first DA zoom that Pentax made (apart from the kit lens).
However, I still enjoy using it as it is so light and on the whole sharp, but on the K-5, it is showing its age.