DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Has the 16-85 put any 16-45s out to pasture?

Started Feb 1, 2016 | Discussions thread
hulahula Junior Member • Posts: 38
Re: Has the 16-85 put any 16-45s out to pasture?

I did. I really liked 16-45. It was almost perfect for landscapes, close ups (it did not vignette with Raynox diopters!) and even head&shoulders portraits at 45/4. Very nice sharpness and colours, flare resistance and microcontrast. Build quality was far from perfect; wobbling of the barrel at 16mm had impact on image quality. One had to press the barrel in-axis backwards slightly to get consistent results in the corners.

I was lucky to get a good copy of 16-85 (it was real blessing after having three decentered copies of 18-135 and one of 35/2.4). I miss minimal focusing distance, the lens is bulkier, heavier, it vignettes heavily with raynoxes. Build quality is in completely another level. It is a real aristocrat when image quality is considered. Excellent sharpness distributed evenly on the image, no major flaws. I have had a few very good primes, and the lens can compete with any one of them in sharpness and micro contrast. For me, it is just a stuck of primes, which is more then excuse for its weight. Whereas 16-45 was short from time to time, I can consider 16-85 as one-lens solution when needed. Used with k5iis, the focus is precise (up to an occasional hunting at minimal focusing distance at 85mm), which makes the lens very reliable piece of equipment.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow