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

hulahula wrote:

I did. I really liked 16-45. It was almost perfect for landscapes, close ups (it did not vignette with Raynox diopters!)

I have the Raynox 250 and it seems like I tried it on the 16-45 without much success. I think the minimum focusing distance was close enough on that lens that the Raynox didn't give a huge boost to the reproduction ratio. Then again, I mostly used that adapter on the 50-200.

and even head&shoulders portraits at 45/4. Very nice sharpness and colours, flare resistance and microcontrast.

I find mine is a little dull at the wide end, but quite sharp throughout the rest. Interestingly it seems to work well with a Vivitar 1.4x teleconverter, which is strange because that teleconverter looks pretty bad with every other lens I have.

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 16-45 focuses surprisingly close at 16mm. The reproduction ratios are very similar for these two lenses, but I assume the 16-85 only gets there at 85mm.

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.

That's a pretty good synopsis. While I'm not keen on the extra weight, the build quality would be worth it. The in lens motor and the larger front element must contribute as well. I wonder how much vignetting I'd get if I used my 67mm polarizer with the 16-85.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36516422@N02/