Pentax DA 16-45

Somewhere, tonight, on this forum I read that somebody was really disappointed with the DA 16-45, but I can't find the topic anymore. Sorry! I'd like to hear how other people feel about this lens, as it's the one I would like to buy next. Not yet, have to start saving up first but I read some positive reviews and I think it might be a good replacement for the 18-55 kit lens. I know a 12-24 would be much better, but I like short-term, achievable goals.

The poster was, I think, unique. Everybody else who has one, loves it.

I think Aminstar is still selling brand-new 12-24s for a bit over UKP400; if that's what you have set your heart on.

G

Thanks George. No, I haven't really - set my heart on a 12-24, that is. I'm fairly new to photography and enjoy every bit of it, but the 12-24s that Aminstar is selling are more than my budget allows unfortunately. A 16-45 on the other hand is a lens I could afford before the end of the year and I've seen some good reviews and quite a few very nice pictures with it.

twoz me, and yes I feel quite odd in not liking it. I'm sure it's just me.

It can be very sharp but is very soft wide open. It focuses fast but noisily.
Paulyrichard is a perfect example of someone who gets on with the lens.
It is clearly a very capable piece of kit, but my post was all about the most used kit and the 16-45 is my least used, and I wouldn't miss it, which is just as well as I think I have broken it - recently dropped off the tripod onto grass from about 2 feet - an old metal lens would be fine but this thing is so flimsy I fear this little tumble has done in the focus.

Pffff .... Darkmunk and there was me hoping you'd keep it for me till the end of the year, looking well after it, caring for it etc. etc. and then sell it to me. 's Not going to happen now, is it?

You're sure you didn't drop it deliberately?

I'm surprised that a drop of two feet onto grass has damaged it. I dropped an egg from the top of a castle tower onto grass and it didn't smash. Grass provides a lot of cushioning.

G

Another vote for the DA16-45. I actually haven't used it that much since I bought mine but have been very pleased with the results - it's a significant step up from the kit in terms of performance and in the extra 2mm, which is great. Contra to Darkmunk's experience mine performs pretty well from wide open - not in the same class as the 12-24, but way better than the 18-55. (Perhaps you have a bad copy Darkmunk?)

It was my default lens until I returned to the UK last Xmas and was too tempted by the versatility - and £50 cashback + VAT refund - of the DA17-70. However, at current prices there's no question I'd go for the DA16-45. The 17-70 is a tad sharper, has a more useful range (though I sometimes miss the extra 1mm), and is much better built (the 16-45 being on a par with the kit lens) - but it's not worth twice the price, which it is now.

Was going to sell my 16-45 earlier this year, but in the end decided that the £185 quid I was offered wasn't enough to prevent me keeping it. Mostly because I thought it would be good to keep as a back up if something was to happen to the SDM on the 17-70 (was reading about problems with this at the time) here in Colombo, where it would be difficult to obtain any replacement. But also because I'd simply developed a fondness for it!

Re-reading my post, I perhaps ought to clarify that the 16-45 hasn't been used much - despite briefly being a default lens - because I bought the 17-70 only a couple of months afterwards (tempted, as I said, by an effective price of £230 for the DA17-70 - those were the days:lol.

Ha ha ha....oh Lidy, you don't know me very well yet


I had another copy (documented here) and had it replaced as it was all wobbly and the focus kept dropping off.
This one is much tighter but the image quality is still a bit marginal. in the studio it is good for kids because it focuses fast, but even at f8 the Fa50mm 1:4 is leagues ahead in terms of sharpness (but that lens is really slow to focus).

Since dropping it (really, an innocuous little tumble onto the grass) it has started refusing to focus at infinity, stopping the camera from firing. it just makes a little noise like it's having a go but can't do it.

I'll try and find time to show you later.

Didn't you see his shot in last week's comp, Lidy!

Maybe you got two bad copies, Darkmunk.

By the way, seeing as you don't like the 16-45, maybe you could use this as your designated sailing lens!

Interesting what you said about the 50 f1.4. I thought fast primes were supposed to outperform zooms significantly when it comes to focusing.

Te he, ah, if only it was 6mm wider


Must get some work done, but maybe we can do some comparative tests?

Not my favourite activity, testing, but if you really want to I'd be happy to oblige. Though hasn't yours been rather compromised by the fall?!

I hadn't then, but I have now! You're referring to the salty fisheye right?


I understand you don't consider yourself the loving, caring type?

Did the same with my Tamron SP AF 24-135mm and have the exact same problem (although mine was a 4ft drop onto a concrete floor). Intro2002 say it needs a complete rebuild requiring about 4 different parts at a cost of £105.

Saying that it's been with them for about 4 months now as Tamron are so slow supplying one of the parts needed.

Here are some shots taken this morning after making sure the camera was focusing properly. Both the 16-45 and fa50 needed the same debug tweak to stop them focusing behind. You'll notice the 16-45 shots are also underexposed - this happened consistently so I saw no reason to compensate for this test.
My 55-300 also does this.

FA50mm 1:4 at f4
full image -


100percent crop -


16-45mm 1:4 at f4
full image -


100percent crop -


.
.
By the way, the 16-45 hasn't shown any sign of refusing to focus today.
.
.