16-85 v 50 2.8

ozdean

Forum Pro
Messages
28,893
Solutions
9
Reaction score
7,401
Location
Toowoomba, AU
As you can see it is very good



02b27c6aba4a4fb2a7a5987b48ac6f4f.jpg




6dbfe598f44e4bd4a820f9aa22faae07.jpg




--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright
 
Maybe General Purpose or Travel Lens would be a better terminology Barry
"Travel lens" is usually used for a superzoom though, something that can serve as the one-and-only while you're traveling. I'm sure some would use it for traveling, but most would prefer to have more tele available.
If I had to tour the world with my K-3 and just one of my current lenses, it would be the DA* 60-250mm. It has been by far my used lens for several years. (

With two of my current lenses: I would add my DA 12-24mm.

And with three, I would add my DA 16-85mm.

(But if I were seriously restricted for size and weight, it would be recent Panasonic LX100, which is my "carry nearly everywhere" camera which has replaced my comprehensive Q system).
 
I think that the 50 wins here, but the 16-85 looks pretty good for a zoom. Thanks for taking the time to test and to post. Much appreciated.
 
Barry I agree the 60-250 is a beautiful but for travel it is large, when I get serious I use it, for personal travel I try not to be too serious.
 
Yes you are right EHD but the 16-85 does very well.
 
Interesting test. I feel the DFA50 is sharper but the 16-85 is impressive. Would have been interesting to have taken an image with the DA*55mm which is a very sharp lens.
 
When Pentax introduced this lens, I thought, "What, a yawn - an expensive one at that." Who wants a slow variable like that?

The images and comparison images pretty quickly dispelled that. Pretty outrageous to take a lens like this up against a good macro. Turns out it's close. Pretty darn amazing.

This is a lens that absolutely does not fit my shooting needs - which aren't typical. If Pentax is smart about it, though, this lens can make a difference. Small enough, high enough quality, that Pentax can really find a niche packaging this lens with quality APS-c bodies. I've already recommended the switch to a discerning Nikon user who needs to go lighter and smaller in WR - especially for travel. Prior to the 16-85, I would have recommended looking at other brand options (Olympus, Fuji, etc.). Not now.

Only question, is Pentax marketing finally smart enough to know how to make the most of it?
 
JNR my guess it will be the kit for the K3II
 
Thanks Dean for posting these shots, very close indeed. The 16-85mm will become one of the best "kit zoom" of Pentax and maybe of it's kind compared to the Canon 15-85mm and Nikon 16-85mm ! I know it's better than the Canon 15-85mm because I did owned it when I was shooting mostly Canon the last 2 years.
I've seen this Pentax lens referred to as a "kit" lens a couple of times.

I've always assumed that a "kit lens" was a lens sold with a body to make a "ready to go" starter kit. Typically such a lens would be fairly cheap, because otherwise it would make the camera appear more expensive, and anyone willing to pay lots for it is likely to want to be a bit choosy with the camera + lens combination.

I've never thought of the term as meaning simply "any mid-range zoom". For example, I've never thought of my DA 17-70mm f/4 as a kit lens, yet I've seen that cheaper than the DA 16-85mm. And (perhaps I've missed something) I haven't yet seen the DA 16-85mm sold as part of a camera+lens kit.

Am I missing something? Has the terminology changed while I haven't been paying attention?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top