Upgrading from Pentax 16-45 f4 - what to buy?

I'm off travelling to Peru for a month in the summer and looking to get a sharper lens to replace my pentax 16-45 f4 (which is my go to lens atm).

I will also taking my DA* 50-135 with me.

The two I am considering are:
Pentax DA* 16-50mm
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8

My question is are those two noticeably better (sharper, speed of focus) than the 16-45 f4? Should i be considering a different lens? Or stick with what I've got? My Budget is around the £300 mark (although i can stretch it abit).

Thanks

Will

The 16-50 would be my recommendation from the two lenses as having owned them both the Pentax is a better lens than the Tamron.

That said the Tamron is a cracker and far cheaper.

I know this is beyond what you asked but for travel I have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4 which suits my needs and is light enough and nice and sharp.

I always liked the 16-45mm, it's a bit clunky but mine was very sharp and the IQ was great. I sold it in favour of the 17-70mm f4 (no focusing problems here) which I use quite a bit more than the 16-50mm.

Personally I would keep the 16-45mm and look at buying a macro lens (but then I like doing macro) as I would presume there would be plenty of interesting subjects in Peru.

Wouldn't the 16-85 make a much more versatile choice? If you can get a good copy then you've got the perfect all-rounder.

It may not be the best for low light but f/5.6 is only two stops away from f/2.8. You could compensate by lowering the shutter speed and bumping up the ISO a bit more.

Keep what you have, better the devil you know, money better spent on a prime or macro

I doubt you'll find anything much sharper than the 16-45 in a zoom. I can't comment on the 16-50 as I've never owned one, but the 16-45 always seemed to me to be a pretty sharp lens. You can find lenses with better build quality, including the Pentax 17-70 and the Sigma 17-70, which is IMO sharper than the Pentax lens, but probably not sharper than the 16-45.

If sharpness is your reason for wanting to swap, you may have a poor copy, or you may have to spend a lot of money to better the 16-45! If your reason is to get a better handling lens or a longer focal length, or wider aperture, or better bokeh I can understand this, but I wouldn't assume you will get sharper if you swap.

Regards
David

Another vote for keeping the 16-45.. Wouldn't part with mine in favour of the options you have listed...

+1 for keeping the 16-45, unless there is something wrong with the one that you have.

If size and handling bother you, then how about a Limited prime, such as the DA21 ?

I've got a 16-45 and it's very, very good.

I've also got a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and that's even better in almost every respect. It's around £329 at present

I'd keep the 16-45 and add either an 18-135 for days when you want a single WR lens solution. Or a Sigma 10-20 which would be handy for interiors or vistas. The 18-135 is small enough to get in a jacket pocket.

Thank you all for coming back to me on this,

hmmm i'm going to re think this and keep the 16-45 (it has served me well over the years after all) and might look into a prime instead

If it is permitted to mention this here, this lens has the highest rating, of those zooms mentioned above, in the many user reviews and the in-depth review on the US Pentax forum web site.

Cheers.
Philip

The 16-45mm came out well in this test...

http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2010/03/standard-zoom-mega-shootout-da-vs-faj.html

--

Had a 16-45. Never happy with infinity focus. My copy clearly! Sharp enough, punchy. 16mm is useful.

Loved my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. Now sold awaiting postage. Hated the poor flare control and the rendering though.

Now have the Tamron 17-50. Chuffed. Great rendering. Great flare control.

Cheers!

Mac

will6558, the photos in your gallery taken with the K-3 & 16-45 look pretty sharp to me. What are you viewing them on?