Pentax Forums first impressions of the new 16-85mm
787 posts
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 17:22
I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, love the macro and like the aperture, but don't particularly like the bokeh or the fact that it is not weather sealed. The last one has been bugging more lately.
The 18-135mm seems like the way to go for my needs, but this might even be better. More tele and wide than the Sigma and with WR.
Unfortunately its new, so too expensive.
TWAPSI Blog
The 18-135mm seems like the way to go for my needs, but this might even be better. More tele and wide than the Sigma and with WR.
Unfortunately its new, so too expensive.
TWAPSI Blog
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 19:05
I love my 16-45 and 18-135 - this seems like a good compromise between the two!
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 19:47
edumad wrote:
I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, love the macro and like the aperture, but don't particularly like the bokeh or the fact that it is not weather sealed. The last one has been bugging more lately.
The 18-135mm seems like the way to go for my needs, but this might even be better. More tele and wide than the Sigma and with WR.
Unfortunately its new, so too expensive.
I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, love the macro and like the aperture, but don't particularly like the bokeh or the fact that it is not weather sealed. The last one has been bugging more lately.
The 18-135mm seems like the way to go for my needs, but this might even be better. More tele and wide than the Sigma and with WR.
Unfortunately its new, so too expensive.
I agree edumad! About 100-150 Euro's too much, currently it is £499 (680 Euro) if it was £399 (543 Euro) over here, I'd be all over one, as it is, it's got me looking at slowly picking up limiteds (AGAIN!
) for something sharp in the Pentax standard range because the 16-50 F2.8 and the 18-135 just don't cut the mustard, my 17-70 F4 is ok but only ok. My 12-24 and 60-250mm F4's are better right across the frame than any of the Pentax standard zooms, to get something really sharp, I've got to by a Ltd or start saving for the 16-85...The consolation may be that if it's half as good as the Nikon one it'll be superb!
So it indeed may just be worth the scheckles but £500 (680 Euro) is tooo much for a standard F5.6 zoom...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 24/02/2015 - 19:49
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 20:39
jules wrote:
I agree edumad! About 100-150 Euro's too much, currently it is £499 (680 Euro) if it was £399 (543 Euro) over here, I'd be all over one, as it is, it's got me looking at slowly picking up limiteds (AGAIN!) for something sharp in the Pentax standard range because the 16-50 F2.8 and the 18-135 just don't cut the mustard, my 17-70 F4 is ok but only ok. My 12-24 and 60-250mm F4's are better right across the frame than any of the Pentax standard zooms, to get something really sharp, I've got to by a Ltd or start saving for the 16-85...
The consolation may be that if it's half as good as the Nikon one it'll be superb!
So it indeed may just be worth the scheckles but £500 (680 Euro) is tooo much for a standard F5.6 zoom...
edumad wrote:
I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, love the macro and like the aperture, but don't particularly like the bokeh or the fact that it is not weather sealed. The last one has been bugging more lately.
The 18-135mm seems like the way to go for my needs, but this might even be better. More tele and wide than the Sigma and with WR.
Unfortunately its new, so too expensive.
I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5, love the macro and like the aperture, but don't particularly like the bokeh or the fact that it is not weather sealed. The last one has been bugging more lately.
The 18-135mm seems like the way to go for my needs, but this might even be better. More tele and wide than the Sigma and with WR.
Unfortunately its new, so too expensive.
I agree edumad! About 100-150 Euro's too much, currently it is £499 (680 Euro) if it was £399 (543 Euro) over here, I'd be all over one, as it is, it's got me looking at slowly picking up limiteds (AGAIN!
) for something sharp in the Pentax standard range because the 16-50 F2.8 and the 18-135 just don't cut the mustard, my 17-70 F4 is ok but only ok. My 12-24 and 60-250mm F4's are better right across the frame than any of the Pentax standard zooms, to get something really sharp, I've got to by a Ltd or start saving for the 16-85...The consolation may be that if it's half as good as the Nikon one it'll be superb!
So it indeed may just be worth the scheckles but £500 (680 Euro) is tooo much for a standard F5.6 zoom...
I meant to add, third party lens manufacturers need no longer apply
They won't support my chosen brand properly, so I won't buy any of their lenses...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 21:14
Bit surprised they didn't compare it to the DA17-70/4 - OK it's not weather sealed but it's more appropriate than the 18-55 IMHO. If I didn't have the DA17-70 I might prefer the extra width, WR & DC motor of the 16-85 (but, it's a bit slow at the long end) although I don't use focal lengths between 50 & 135 often.
I'm sure for many it will be the best lens for their needs, and a much better focal length range than the 18-135 for me.
+1 for no interest in independent lenses - at least until they support Pentax bodies properly and the focus rings turn the same way as Pentax ones.
PPG Flickr
I'm sure for many it will be the best lens for their needs, and a much better focal length range than the 18-135 for me.
+1 for no interest in independent lenses - at least until they support Pentax bodies properly and the focus rings turn the same way as Pentax ones.
PPG Flickr
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 21:24
I think the logic was that they were comparing the kit lens options, the 17-70mm isn't one of them.
Best regards, John
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 24/02/2015 - 23:12
johnriley wrote:
I think the logic was that they were comparing the kit lens options, the 17-70mm isn't one of them.
I think the logic was that they were comparing the kit lens options, the 17-70mm isn't one of them.
Yes that was my thinking too John but my feeling is that this is the 17-70's replacement, I'd like to see a test run between the two to see if it's worth keeping mine against this one, I nearly pulled the trigger last week when it was £441 on Amazon, luckily the next day it went back up to over £500, so my Credit card sweated for nought
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Link
Posted 25/02/2015 - 06:54
I'm seriously battling to understand the reach section where they upsample the 85mm. What is not there is not there and can't be created. Wouldn't a crop so the subject is the same size be a better approach?
What am I missing?
Pentax K10D + Vivitar 55/2.8 macro + Super Takumar 55/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 85/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 135/3.5 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 200/4 + Super Takumar 300/4
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
What am I missing?
Pentax K10D + Vivitar 55/2.8 macro + Super Takumar 55/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 85/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 135/3.5 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 200/4 + Super Takumar 300/4
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
Link
Posted 25/02/2015 - 08:24
I think they are trying to say, if you want the 135mm focal length buy the lens that gets there, in that context the 18-135mm is better but if you need 16mm or any of the directly comparable focal lengths, then it would appear that the newbie is better and it should be...
Agree though it's a bit of a cack handed way to go about finding a reason to want the 18-135 over this lens, as apart from aperture they really are not the same thing. This one is designed to be a cut above the two it was compared to, as John says, they were comparing to the two current "Kit" lenses but a more appropriate test would be against the 17-70, which I'm sure it replaces, and I would also like to see it tested against the 16-50mm F2.8, apart from the 2.8 bit I'll warrant the new lens walks all over it.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Agree though it's a bit of a cack handed way to go about finding a reason to want the 18-135 over this lens, as apart from aperture they really are not the same thing. This one is designed to be a cut above the two it was compared to, as John says, they were comparing to the two current "Kit" lenses but a more appropriate test would be against the 17-70, which I'm sure it replaces, and I would also like to see it tested against the 16-50mm F2.8, apart from the 2.8 bit I'll warrant the new lens walks all over it.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Link
Posted 25/02/2015 - 10:55
jules wrote:
would also like to see it tested against the 16-50mm F2.8, apart from the 2.8 bit I'll warrant the new lens walks all over it.
would also like to see it tested against the 16-50mm F2.8, apart from the 2.8 bit I'll warrant the new lens walks all over it.
What?????
You expect a 5:1 ratio f5.6 consumer zoom to walk all over a respected 3:1 ration f2.8 lens? I think your expectations are completely unrealistic Jules but it would be a very welcome miracle if it actually turned out that way.
Link
Posted 26/02/2015 - 05:33
The 16-50, just isn't that good, I've had two and the 17-70 is better optically or at least for my needs, it is sharper across the frame than the 16-50, from the smalll sample I have (Two of each), or to put it in context has a more even distribution of sharpness. To me as a landscape shooter, this matters more than anything. Ok I'll concede I should be using primes but to be honest, when it's raining cats and dogs or I'm on a summit in a force nine, I'm not changing lenses, the two copies I've had of the 16-50 are not sharp anywhere until F4, and then thats only in the centre, the edges never really catch up, sorry but I just don't rate it anymore, The distortion at 16mm on the F2.8 zoom is almost like a fisheye! (Exaggeration) Anecdotally it would seem the new 16-85mm is very sharp across the frame, and has less distortion, I look forward to reading a more complete test but as far as the 16-50 is concerned, it's nicely packaged but thats it really. The original design for this lens must date back ten years and it's eight or so since it's release, time is catching it now...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 26/02/2015 - 05:35
Link
Posted 26/02/2015 - 08:23
That's odd jules, as many on here have said the quality of the 16-50mm is sublime. Some even claim it rivals the 31mm.
It can be hard to reconcile and make sense of totally opposing viewpoints, although to be fair they are all subjective I suppose. There's no substitute for trying a lens for ourselves.
Best regards, John
It can be hard to reconcile and make sense of totally opposing viewpoints, although to be fair they are all subjective I suppose. There's no substitute for trying a lens for ourselves.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 26/02/2015 - 08:24
jules wrote:
The 16-50, just isn't that good, I've had two and the 17-70 is better optically or at least for my needs, it is sharper across the frame than the 16-50, from the smalll sample I have (Two of each), or to put it in context has a more even distribution of sharpness. To me as a landscape shooter, this matters more than anything. Ok I'll concede I should be using primes but to be honest, when it's raining cats and dogs or I'm on a summit in a force nine, I'm not changing lenses, the two copies I've had of the 16-50 are not sharp anywhere until F4, and then thats only in the centre, the edges never really catch up, sorry but I just don't rate it anymore, The distortion at 16mm on the F2.8 zoom is almost like a fisheye! (Exaggeration) Anecdotally it would seem the new 16-85mm is very sharp across the frame, and has less distortion, I look forward to reading a more complete test but as far as the 16-50 is concerned, it's nicely packaged but thats it really. The original design for this lens must date back ten years and it's eight or so since it's release, time is catching it now...
The 16-50, just isn't that good, I've had two and the 17-70 is better optically or at least for my needs, it is sharper across the frame than the 16-50, from the smalll sample I have (Two of each), or to put it in context has a more even distribution of sharpness. To me as a landscape shooter, this matters more than anything. Ok I'll concede I should be using primes but to be honest, when it's raining cats and dogs or I'm on a summit in a force nine, I'm not changing lenses, the two copies I've had of the 16-50 are not sharp anywhere until F4, and then thats only in the centre, the edges never really catch up, sorry but I just don't rate it anymore, The distortion at 16mm on the F2.8 zoom is almost like a fisheye! (Exaggeration) Anecdotally it would seem the new 16-85mm is very sharp across the frame, and has less distortion, I look forward to reading a more complete test but as far as the 16-50 is concerned, it's nicely packaged but thats it really. The original design for this lens must date back ten years and it's eight or so since it's release, time is catching it now...
Sorry Jules, I can't agree that "the 16-50, just isn't that good" - some of us have had bad experiences with particular lenses, and I suspect you've been particularly unlucky with your 16-50's.
I've had 2 17-70's - the first had an inability to lock focus in many situation (so was returned), the second was okay - but IMO not a patch on the DA*16-50! Yes, at f2.8 it isn't totally sharp, but I've seen much softer lenses. I don't think the advances in lens design over the last 10 years has been so significant that we need to trade up - I suspect there are many happy 16-50 users out there
LennyBloke
Link
Posted 26/02/2015 - 09:44
"Sorry Jules, I can't agree that "the 16-50, just isn't that good" - some of us have had bad experiences with particular lenses, and I suspect you've been particularly unlucky with your 16-50's.
I've had 2 17-70's - the first had an inability to lock focus in many situation (so was returned), the second was okay - but IMO not a patch on the DA*16-50! Yes, at f2.8 it isn't totally sharp, but I've seen much softer lenses. I don't think the advances in lens design over the last 10 years has been so significant that we need to trade up - I suspect there are many happy 16-50 users out there"
I can't disagree now as I've just done a deal with Doug at SrS to try out another one, I sincerely hope I am not dissapointed this time, the two I've had have been outshone by my two 17-70's, and I'd all but given up on the lens, third time lucky maybe?
I was not trying to wrankle 16-50 users either but I suppose my usage is quite specific, well I'm hoping I'll not be unlucky three times!
I would be interested in any comments from anyone using the lens with a K3, I have a fairly long return period agreed so if I'm not happy I can return it for another or for the 16-85, can't beat SrS, and I got a years guarantee on the lens I just bought, terrific really!
The decider for me was the return deal and the fact that this lens takes all my 77mm filters direct, which will mean less faffing about in the field, I really do want to like this lens, so lennybloke and gwing it's all on you... No pressure.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
I've had 2 17-70's - the first had an inability to lock focus in many situation (so was returned), the second was okay - but IMO not a patch on the DA*16-50! Yes, at f2.8 it isn't totally sharp, but I've seen much softer lenses. I don't think the advances in lens design over the last 10 years has been so significant that we need to trade up - I suspect there are many happy 16-50 users out there
"I can't disagree now as I've just done a deal with Doug at SrS to try out another one, I sincerely hope I am not dissapointed this time, the two I've had have been outshone by my two 17-70's, and I'd all but given up on the lens, third time lucky maybe?
I was not trying to wrankle 16-50 users either but I suppose my usage is quite specific, well I'm hoping I'll not be unlucky three times!
I would be interested in any comments from anyone using the lens with a K3, I have a fairly long return period agreed so if I'm not happy I can return it for another or for the 16-85, can't beat SrS, and I got a years guarantee on the lens I just bought, terrific really!
The decider for me was the return deal and the fact that this lens takes all my 77mm filters direct, which will mean less faffing about in the field, I really do want to like this lens, so lennybloke and gwing it's all on you... No pressure.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 26/02/2015 - 09:46
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
jules
Member
Storbritannia
LBA!
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com