Reading mode: Light Dark

Thoughts and experience of the 16-45mm please.

Go to last post
essH said:
I've had a 16-45 for some time; I bought it for use on an *istD and continue to use it frequently. I'm generally very satisfied with it, but there's a design quirk documented elsewhere but not yet mentioned in this thread. It's that as you widen the zoom, the lens body extends - so the lens is longest when at 16mm. This is not generally a problem unless you are intending to use the pop-up flash - because it then casts a significant shadow on the lower half of your subject area.
papillon_65 said:
Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far, your comments and pictures have been a great help, please keep them coming, both pro's and cons.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
--
Simon
Click to expand...
Thanks Simon, I did mention this in my OP and am aware of it but I don't intend to use it with a flash so it's a non-issue for me. It does seem a bit of a quirky design though. As long as it's strong on the wide end and decent for landscapes then I'll be happy. From what I have seen so far then it does meet this criteria.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
Definitely strong at the wide end. You will really notice the extra 2mm over the kit lens too
--
Everything changes
 
I find my copy to very, very sharp in the 5.6-11 range, which is where I typically use the lens. The corners are sharp by f8. I dropped mine once, and so now it is a little out of alignment, but it does not really bother me in practice. Its really nice for what it is, but its not really that small if thats what you are looking for. The tamron 17-50 is considerably more compact, generally more sharp, and f2.8. Of course you lose a mm on the wide and, but gain 5 on the long end. Here are some of the shots I took with the 16-45 this year (alot of these are from my vacation to the UK, where I used the 16-45 almost exclusively)













































































--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=0&language=EN
 
Very nice set, thanks for posting it. I'm not worried about the size and weight, it's not especially heavy for me to be honest. Those are the kinds of shots I tend to take so it looks like it could be a good choice for me.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
Another great feature of the 16-45 is its close-focus abilities.

You can get very close at all focal lengths, which is great for landscapes with good foreground interest.

I had Sigma's 17-70 in my Alpha days, always thought I would own one but I don't miss it. I gave up some reach but 16mm is worth having.
--

Jim in Oregon.. granitix.blogspot.. A200 veteran, now K-7 + G1 so I agree w/you about the 14-45!
 
jimrpdx said:
Another great feature of the 16-45 is its close-focus abilities.

You can get very close at all focal lengths, which is great for landscapes with good foreground interest.

I had Sigma's 17-70 in my Alpha days, always thought I would own one but I don't miss it. I gave up some reach but 16mm is worth having.
--

Jim in Oregon.. granitix.blogspot.. A200 veteran, now K-7 + G1 so I agree w/you about the 14-45!
Click to expand...
Thanks Jim, close focusing ability is good for me.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
the 16-45 is very sharp..stopped down, its sharp from corner to corner. I recently traded mine in for a sigma 17-50OS...the VF is now a tad brighter due to the 2.8 of the sigma....but the 16-45 holds its own even up against the sigma, which is very very sharp

have a look a DXO compare lens ...use the 16-45 with the pentax K20, and then compare the 16-50 DA with a K20..the 16-45 dumps on the 16-50 from a great height, at about 1/4 the cost

--
I hope to improve with age...hasn't happened yet
 
essH said:
I've had a 16-45 for some time; I bought it for use on an *istD and continue to use it frequently. I'm generally very satisfied with it, but there's a design quirk documented elsewhere but not yet mentioned in this thread. It's that as you widen the zoom, the lens body extends - so the lens is longest when at 16mm.
Click to expand...
It's a bit frivolous, but I found that aspect of the lens rather annoying. It just didn't feel right, and mine had a rather uneven zoom action. I also found the 45mm long end a bit too limiting. Performance-wise it was OK but not earth shattering. I decided that if I was going to carry the extra weight of a zoom lens, then the Sigma 17-70 was a better proposition overall, and so it has proved. (Although I probably use the FA24-90 more.)
--
tim
 
papillon_65 said:
I know this has been posted before but I'm still unsure about this lens. My situation is this, I recently bought the K-x and twin kit lenses 18-55mm and 50-200mm. I've tested the 18-55mm DAL and have been disappointed in it, I also bought the WR version and it is no better. I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of the kit lens, that's been done to death. I am used to sharp zoom lenses and this one does not meet my needs, it is just unworkable for me personally, YMMV. However, the 50-200mm is acceptable to me and I can get decent results with this lens.

This has led to me explore other options for a smallish travel zoom. I was considering the 15mm DA but I'm not prepared to pay what it costs for a slow prime. I have looked at the other options. I don't want to spend a fortune for a lens that I will use occasionally as a lightweight travel kit. This rules out the 17-70mm and 16-50mm. The Tamron 18-50mm is not quite wide enough for my purposes so this leaves the 16-45mm, which is a reasonable price here in the UK.

I have looked at image samples form this lens and I like the low distortion, colour and contrast from what I have seen. This leaves me questioning the sharpness?

A constant F4 aperture is fine as is the focal length as I will switch to the 50-200mm for a longer focal length. I am also not worried about the zoom extending at the wide end and hampering flash as I intend to use it in available light.

With this in mind how sharp is this lens at F4/5.6 and is it that much better than the 18-55? If it is not significantly better I will look for other options if there are any.

If it can be sharp enough it ticks all the other boxes for me. I would be interested to hear opinions on people who have used this and the 18-55mm and what they think of it. Images at larger sizes would also be nice to see. Also, are there any other issues with this lens that I should be aware of and are there any other choices in a similar range/budget?
--
Click to expand...
I have the 16-45mm and have had it for maybe 4-5 years, use it a lot. That said I am looking other options and have ordered a DA15, everything I see about this lens tells me it is worth every cent I have paid for it.

Here is a couple of shots I have taken in the last couple of days, the horses were at F5.6 and the falls were at F16 with my K-5.

Cheers.

Pete







 
Tommot1965 said:
the 16-45 is very sharp..stopped down, its sharp from corner to corner. I recently traded mine in for a sigma 17-50OS...the VF is now a tad brighter due to the 2.8 of the sigma....but the 16-45 holds its own even up against the sigma, which is very very sharp

have a look a DXO compare lens ...use the 16-45 with the pentax K20, and then compare the 16-50 DA with a K20..the 16-45 dumps on the 16-50 from a great height, at about 1/4 the cost

--
I hope to improve with age...hasn't happened yet
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll check that out.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
Thanks for posting these Pete, nice work. I'm confident enough on this lens to give it a try now. I shall be ordering one today. Thanks to everyone for posting your thoughts both positive and otherwise. I think 95% of the people who've used it seem to rate it highly for it's price and that's good enough for me. Those who haven't been quite as positive have highlighted some of it's weaknesses which is also useful. I tend to carry two or three lenses at a time so swapping has never been a problem to me. I intend to use it alongside the 50-200mm and 35mm 2.4. I also have a beautiful little Takumar 55mm 1.8 (which has lovely colour and contrast) which I will sometimes swap with the 35mm. This will give me a nice balance of wide to telephoto, with a faster prime for lower light. It will all fit into quite a small camera bag with no great weight penalty. Hopefully this lens will work out for me and I can get on with shooting more with the K-x.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
I have the 55mm M f1.8, it is a lovely lens, co;ourwise possibly a bit cooler than modern lenses, but sharp, esp if stopped down a bit, no CAs to speak of, and a joy to focus (at least on my K20). It compliments the 16-45 well.
--
Everything changes
 
Stephenhampshire said:
I have the 55mm M f1.8, it is a lovely lens, co;ourwise possibly a bit cooler than modern lenses, but sharp, esp if stopped down a bit, no CAs to speak of, and a joy to focus (at least on my K20). It compliments the 16-45 well.
--
Everything changes
Click to expand...
Mine actually renders quite warm colours, it is the SMC version if that's relevant? It is soft wide open but as you say, gets nice and sharp stopped down. I'm just waiting for an infinity focus mount adaptor to use it.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
Yes mine is the SMC-K mount version, definitely cooler than say, the DA35mm f2.4 which I also have. The two shots below were taken 25 mins apart with the 16-45mm and 55mm. Mind you I have mucked about with WB so don't read too much into the pictures. Good demonstration of the flexibility of that lens combo though.









--
Everything changes
 
Nice shots, yes I can see what you mean. I'll have to give the 55mm a good test, my initial shots with it were indoors so maybe it's the white balance that made it look warmer. My 35mm 2.4 renders colours very warm so it will be interesting to compare the two once my adaptor arrives.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top