Ricoh announces weather-resistant HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6

The problem is I'm not certain it will outperform the DA18-135, or the DA17-70 for that matter.

And the DA18-135 isn't that bad a lens, if you consider its purpose and price. Image Quality is often good or better, and f/3.5-5.6 is a lot more tolerable when your range goes from 18 to 135mm. More importantly, the DA18-135 costs only half what this lens does - potentially even less if you get it bundled with a camera. I could see myself using it as a travel lens.

But how could I choose a lens that's f/5.6 at 85mm (probably much sooner - perhaps at only 50mm?) for twice the price? The difference between 16 and 18mm is important, but it's not enough to tip the scales.

They would have been better off just re-releasing the DA17-70/4 with WR and an updated AF motor. That was a pretty good lens already.

@audiobomber

i doubt that hardly, but perhaps photozone does have had a bad example for reviewing.

I've checked the samples onto the ephotozine review above - and it doesn't look too good for my eyes, lots of CA for instance, onto the shot with the 3 ladies.

@afterswish1

A slow typical 18-55 Kitzoom is into optical terms very easy to design, much less complex then a longer zoom lens. And photozone never failed me with their tests & conclusions about lens quality the last couple years.

@marc petzold:

Every review site that has reviewed both the 18-135 and the 18-55 found the 18-135 to be significantly better in the overlapping (18-55) range -- with one exception: photozone, which found the 18-55 to be significantly better in that range.

Now why do you suppose that would be? Could it be that photozone got the best-ever 18-55; much, much better than any copy of the 18-55 ever seen anywhere else? A miraculously fabulous copy?

Or is it more likely that photozone had a bad copy of the 18-135?

A close reading of the Photozone review shows that the author, Klaus, had his doubts about whether it was a good copy. But the German support center told him it was in spec.

Klaus' mistake was to take the support center at their word. Just because the support center told him it was in spec, does not mean it was actually in spec, nor that it was a good copy. He should have tried to get another copy to test.

A test of a bad copy, no matter how thorough, is not a useful test.

DStudio: I agree completely. People somehow do not see that also Canon´s/Nikon´s comparable lenses are too expensive and by pointing at those mediocre lenses they defent this Pentax. The fact that the others are not good does not mean my similar product is OK. It should definitely have been constant f4. Punktum.

If the optics are good it'll be a great multi-purpose lens for a lot of shooters, even a wedding photographer, but at 16mm, it is not 'perfect' for landscape. The Pentax 12-24 already does a great job for that.

I fail to see how one would get desirable wedding photos from this lens.

Hopefully it will have nice image quality - and it may - but its aperture is too slow to be that flexible (in providing enough subject isolation), and it appears too expensive for what you get.

True but the EF-S lens has to go to 15mm because of the 1.6 Canon crop to get a similar width FOV. The same crop Nikkor 16-85 is 67mm filter.

A comparison can be drawn between the Pentax and Nikon.

I have always felt many Sigma lenses have larger filter threads than many similar Tamrons. Never did a study to be sire.

Petroglyph, 15mm is wider than 16mm, you got that right, but the EF-S crop is smaller so the lens doesn't need to be larger. 15mm f3.5 1.6x is actually a SMALLER aperture than 16mm f3.5 1.5x. Why? Because even though the focal lengths are roughly equivalent, the aperture diameter drops with the crop rate.

So if either lens were going to require a larger filter due to volume of glass, it would be the Nikkor, no the Canon.

It is now, in the old version. A new hd wr version would be more expensive. When they are renewing it, why not make it 2.8 F4 as well? Or 3.5 constant. (Like the old A 35-105)
This lens will compete less with the sigma, because of it's range and WR. It's hard to beat sigma so better offer something different. They have not discontinued the DA 17-70 so it probably is a two horses situation at the moment.

that's standard Nikon. Set it to vibrant

You think Sigma uses window glass that filters out colours? Yeah you are going to get field curvature at 17mm and yeah the corners are going to be soft at 2.8. That's why you stop down. 2.8 is for low light or bokeh, where corners matter less. The Sigma is a fine and sharp lens. Best bang for buck for any dslr. Only brand snobs who won't touch third party gear would disagree.

Of course Sigma uses different glass. In fact, every generation of Pentax lenses uses glass that renders a little differently than the previous one. By observation, the only generations which are nearly identical are the A and F series lenses.

If you can't discern the difference - or you don't care - that's fine. But don't write it off as "brand snobbery."

The fact that a lens is responsible for the subtleties of an image's quality is self-evident. You can change the film, the sensor, or manipulate the digital image, but it's still the lens which dictates what can be captured.

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is not suit for general purpose lens, its edges performance is weak. I will consider this lens, if this lens in par or better than Nikon equivalent offer.

bold statement. Do you mean the overpriced http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED

He may have a good point. Though photozone isn't the be-all end-all authority, their MTF charts show the Pentax DA17-70/4 beating the previous Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 at the edges.

The updated Sigma 'C' version does better at the edges, but appears to still fall a little short of the Pentax 17-70 at most focal lengths.

Now, I still have the Pentax DA 17-70 but forced not to use it. Its SDM fail! That is why I need replacement and sincerely hope this new lens offers can meet user expectations.

Photozone didn't test de 17-70/2.8-4 on Pentax but the previous model 2.8-4.5. They did test it on the Nikon D7000 where it scores very well. http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/822-sigma1770284os?start=2

I never use Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 "C" version but the model before it.
Mine has same characteristic performance on edges (softness & high CA) with the one that reviewed by Lenstip.com.

Old model (w/ same spec?)
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=223

And here the "C" version http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=366

Pls. check also on the actual pictures that taken on field. The Pentax DA 17-70 is not as good as the Sigma on the center but much more even on the whole frame. So, it is much more useful for general purpose lens that cover many situation of photography.

Pentaxforums does not agree. It rates both older sigma's better. http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-sigma-17-70mm-comparison/conclusion-ratings.html

This fixation with corner sharpness at large wide angle apertures seems a bit omphaloskeptical.

Also, don't forget the 2-year EU warranty.

This is what happens when you start trading in capitalism for socialism. Enjoy your VAT tax.

So switch brands already OGL.

Reverse psychology in action!

So lose a little money and get over it. Pentax lenses keep their prices well. I never understand this argument. I'd rather complain for years than lose a nickel.

DC motor is not new, it's the same SDM with simpler gear.

^new in the sense of how Pentax implemented it for the AF lenses.

I need every bit of wide angle for landscapes, so 16 is definitely better than 17. Weather sealing is good idea for the main lens, too.
Also, SDM motor earned itself bad rep...
I dont mind paying more if it's good. I used 16-45 for about 7-8 years by now.

Exactly, at wide end every milimeter is useful and 16mm is better than 17, not to mention 18mm. Lately I switched from zoom beginning at 17mm to 18mm and I do miss it a lot, 18mm is not wide enough and the next lens I am about to buy is 15mm prime. Having a zoom beginning at 16mm I wouldn´t need it.

Hence my comment Ludex that 750 is lofty, or did you stop reading before you got to that point?

And remember, the lens may not be valuable to *you*, even at the price I mentioned, however... the way you word your reply is as if your speaking for the entire community. :)

For me, if it performs optically as well as say Sony's 16-80 Zeiss, that is actually more expensive and not much faster (f/3.5-4.5), I'd find this lens to be of great value. Its quiet focusing, weather resistance, and HD coating would trump the Sony or Canon equivalents alone. But again, optics need to be good.

Carl

Carl: of course I am stating my personal opinion, but I guess some things are self-evident: tha faster lens, the more glass is in it and the optics more complicated; this transforms to price. Lets have a look at Sigma Art 18-35/1,8: it is a masterpiece, constant f1,8 zoom with lots of glass in it and most importantly with fantastic optical performance and I paid 799 USD for it. So a slow zoom with variable aperture for 750 USD cannot be considered as good value.

Tan68: universal lens is supposed to do everything, just like a decathlee. Of course a specialized sprinter or javelin thrower can do this single discipline better, but the decathlee can do it sufficiently. Just like the universal zoom: it should be able to substitute a wideangle landscape lens (and with 16mm wide end this lens can serve this purpose) just like portraits - and in this aspect thie lens fails. Of course a specialeized portrait lens has f1,4 or f1,8, but for a universal lens f2,8 is fine and f4 so-so, but f5,6 is definitely too slow. I could use my former 17-50/2,8 for portraits at the tele end, so that lens was universal for me (if a bit short). I could trade 1 EV of speed for the 35mm gain, but 2 EV is too high price.

A constant aperture lens becomes 'specialized'
It may not be 'specialized' to all but has crossed the threshold...

Comparing the variable aperture lens is a bit odd..

Ludex, the range of the 18-35mm Sigma is MUCH less than 16-85mm. Comparing apples to oranges here big time. Not only is the range less its less of an optical challenge to make that short 2x zoom range a brighter aperture. Sorry your arguments are a bit lofty, in the clouds lofty.

Show me a 16-85mm produced Sigma lens that has weather sealing for less than 750 bucks, or a Tamron with that range.

Good luck bud.

C

Carl: you are stressing tha fact that longer FL is bigger challenge than faster lens. So tell me why are there dozens of ultrazoom lenses, but only one f1,8 zoom? This 16-85mm is no big zoom, it´s only 5,3x and there are similarly slow zooms with way longer reach that are neither heavier, nor pricier. One example for all: Tamron 16-300/3,5-6,3. 18,75x zoom (!), similar luminosity (in fact probably better, since at 85mm it surely won´t be f5,6), similar size, only slightly heavier (but has IS), also weather sealed, with smaler filter thread and noticeably cheaper.
So this Pentax is definitely overpriced for what it is. For this price it should have been f4, or being f3,5-5,6 is should be 500 USD max.
P.S. It´s iudex, not Ludex. ;-)

Its also wider, and 2mm wider creates a bigger design challenge iudex, also, you have to factor in not only the range but the *quality* of the range. Not all 18 something lenses have the same quality at 18mm now do they?

Look I'm done with this convo... its apparent to me that value to you is value to you..., but when you attempt to speak for others on value, thats where you're going wrong here.

Nuff said on this, take care.

Do you read what I write? I write about Tamron 16-300mm and compare it to Pentax 16-85mm and you reply:" it´s also wider, and 2mm wider creates a bigger design challenge..." what are you responding to?
As you say, enough said, it´s a monologue from your side, not a dialogue.

The Pentax looks like a bargain IF it has AF that's as fast and accurate as the Canon's, and IF it's optically as strong :).

(for the record, I hope it is!)

Is the Nikon weather sealed? Or the Canon?

That's the thing- with Pentax, you can get a weather-sealed crop kit (since they don't do full-frame bodies), while you'd have to go full-frame for any kind of sealing in a Canon or Nikon setup; the only other option out there is Fuji.

It's not average F4, but it is easier to make a variable aperture lens and this one doesn't seem to compromise on the size. If the MTF charts are accurate and consistent for all focal lengths, this lens should be very good.

If this lens is not capable to substitute more lenses most of the time, then MFT charts are irrelevant. I would go for a lens with broader FL if it at least partially served more purposes. And at tele end I mostly shoot portraits for which I need reasonably shallow DoF. F2,8 would be the best; f4 is at the borderline, only acceptable because of relatively long FL; f5,6 is far beyond.

Zvonimir: I agree with the FL: 85mm is ideal for portraits. But what background blur do you get at f5,6? I had two slow zooms, apart from the usual kit zoom it was the DA 55-300. It had f4 between 55 and 107mm and it had quite harsh background blur; so I can imagine the terrible bokeh at f5,6. No, thank you.

@iudex
Pentax has a very good record regarding intermediate apertures for zoom lenses, check the 55-300 WR

@iudex: The 16-45mm is even less versatile lens, than this 16-85, yet it has quite a following. Every manufacturer has one of those: Canon 15-85, Nikon 16-85, Sony 16-80, Olympus 12-60 and 12-50. They all have variable (and moderate) apertures, but the reason why every manufacturer has one is because it is very useful. I would gladly get one and replace my 16-45 with it.

@ iudex,

I am really surprised you use 55-300 in range 55-107. I use it at 200 F4 (I think this is the only lens which goes with F4 to 200mm) and is a fantastic outdoor portrait tool with nice bookeh even at 5.6. For 55-100 range use better DA70mm ltd @ F2.4 instead:)

Skilak: check once again. I am sure the DA 55-300 did not have f4 at 200mm. The course of the luminosity was as follows:
f4 from 55 to 107mm
f4,5 from 110 to 190mm
f5,6 from 210 to 260mm
f5,8 till 300mm.
And sorry, bokeh at f5,6 was not great (I did a lot portrait shots at 200-300mm). It had sufficient background blur even at f5,6, but just because of long FL that substituted for missing speed. But at 85mm it is different and it is not sufficiently long to blur the background at f5,6.

Blur does not entirely depend on aperture, but on quality and distance of the background. If the background is natural, not too contrasty in change of light and shade, yet far enough behind the subject, f4 or f5.6 can produce a very nice bohkeh and all the subject plus some close foreground will be in focus. This kind of lens provides us easily a classic, beautiful and well focused portrait on subject and part of its close surrounding. Not a postmodern type, loaded with heavy blur where only tip of the nose is in focus. Yuck!

The Nikon isn't weather-sealed, but its optics are outstanding. Better than the aging 18-55mm f/2.8 that most used to buy.

Fuji 18-55 F/2.8-4
Canon 17-55 F/2.8
Nikon 17-55 F/2.8
Olympus 12-40 f/2.8
Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8
Leica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5

@fmian - you do realise that those lenses you mentioned can't be compared to those the OP mentioned, right?

He's talking about those longer zoom ranges (4x~6x).
All the ones you've mentioned are 'standard' 3x zoom.

Oh.. I didn't quite know what he meant by 'these kinds of crop lenses'. Assumed he meant standard zooms.
I guess they don't make them much because most who are serious about it either go full frame, or split the focal lengths up to get better f/2.8 lenses. Would be more of a financial risk adding another small market to cater to.

I am talking 'premium' midrange zooms. These lenses are the crop equivalent of 24-105mm / 24-120mm lenses, which you cannot tell me is not a popular focal range. Not everyone needs nor wants short ranging f2.8 lenses, personally I find them mostly too short a range while also being too slow, I would use primes over f2.8 zooms. If I want range, a 5x f4 is quite a bit more functional to me (and plenty of others).

But it is mildly irksome that nobody offers anything faster than f3.5-5.6 in these lenses on crop sensors (in OEMs other than Sony). The Leica mentioned above IS an exception and quite a good one at that, but was bloody expensive and is discontinued and for a defunct mount.

Wrong- Pentax has had the 16-50 DA WR 2.8 for years!

Ugh. Read it again. Is that a 16-80-ish lens? No. Everyone has an f2.8 zoom, is this lens meant to replace the 16-50? No.

Many will think it is a replacement for the 16-50 or better with the price they are charging! Catch a 16-50 on sale, and it will only be about $250 higher.

And it won't have the same range. Catch this lens on sale and it will still be significantly cheaper (don't compare sale prices to RRP's). They are different lenses for different uses... Still don't know why they are all so slow though. Is it so unreasonable for a 3x f2.8 and 5x f4?

I agree, the 18-105mm especially is quite video focussed. The Zeiss 16-80mm though is not and has a much closer to constant aperture than the others. It's just a curious thing as the FF equivalents of these lenses usually have a constant or near constant aperture.

Pentax has a DA 17-70mm f/4.

Thanks, didn't notice that. Is it a Tokina rebadged?

@fakuryu & David Bourke

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-limited-primes/aberrations-and-flare.html

It's a little bit better, but not THAT much as you can see here...most photographers don't use a lens hood, which makes much a difference often in harsh light situations.

@marc petzold

It is noticeable and really is much better given the examples. I don't know what you were expecting though.

When you consider the Hi-ISO performance of current sensors the actual need for faster lenses is no longer mainstream, especially when compared to the film era. If you need shallow DOF, shoot in low light, or shoot sports then faster lenses make sense. Otherwise its just carrying more weight.