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

I've searched a few threads, but did not find too many comments about people switching from the DA 16-45 f/4 to the new DA 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. I've had the 16-45 for close to a decade now but I am wondering if it may be time to upgrade the old workhorse. Any thoughts?

GossCTP wrote:

I've searched a few threads, but did not find too many comments about people switching from the DA 16-45 f/4 to the new DA 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. I've had the 16-45 for close to a decade now but I am wondering if it may be time to upgrade the old workhorse. Any thoughts?

My exact thoughts. The DA16-85 is tempting. At what FL does f3.5 become f5.6 ? Is the long end actually useable ?

hulahula wrote:

Aperture vs focal length (approximately):

16-21mm f3.5

21-31mm f4

31-68mm f4.5

68-85 f5.6

As I wrote, it is fine at all focal lengths, (my copy at least)

Thanks for that info. Nice Hradec Kralove night shot, BTW

flektogon wrote:

kh1234567890 wrote:

hulahula wrote:

Aperture vs focal length (approximately):

16-21mm f3.5

21-31mm f4

31-68mm f4.5

68-85 f5.6

As I wrote, it is fine at all focal lengths, (my copy at least)

Thanks for that info. Nice Hradec Kralove night shot, BTW

Well, you are good to recognize Hradec Kralove, but I've never been there so I am excused. But those mountains, are they High Tatras?

Mis-spent youth, nearly half a century ago ... 

Can't see the cable car station on top, so it is probably not Lomnicky Stit in the High Tatras.

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/

Joseph Tainter wrote:

The DA 16-45 was my travel workhorse. I'll never part with it, but have now switched to the DA 16-85, mainly for the water resistance.

Joe

That is what is so tempting - build quality, WR, silent AF. What is not so tempting is speed at the long end and price 

kh1234567890 wrote:

Joseph Tainter wrote:

The DA 16-45 was my travel workhorse. I'll never part with it, but have now switched to the DA 16-85, mainly for the water resistance.

Joe

That is what is so tempting - build quality, WR, silent AF. What is not so tempting is speed at the long end and price

Compared to the 16-45 in the ranges it overlaps the 16-85 is an f/3.5-f/4.5. Not as neat and simple as a constant f/4, but in real performance terms that's about as close as it gets to being a wash. The same can almost be said vs the 17-70 f/4.

If you are in the U.S., the price is actually pretty good if the lens lives up to the hype. Especially in comparison to what the early adopters paid for it.

Joseph Tainter wrote:

The DA 16-45 was my travel workhorse. I'll never part with it, but have now switched to the DA 16-85, mainly for the water resistance.

Joe

Do you notice much difference optically vs the 16-45? Are there any areas the 16-45 is preferable (aside from weight)?

hulahula wrote:

16-45 was better:

- for close ups, (16-85 MFD is longer)

- it was easier to make starbursts (16-85 makes the sun perfectly circular which is not bad either. Rather depends on your taste), maybe 16-45 was a bit less prone to flare

- no problems with cokin p system (no vignetting) (with 16-85, I didn't find a convenient way yet how to avoid vignetting with uv and cokin holder on)

16-85 better:

- much more consistent image quality, 16mm very sharp to the corners (not so with 16-45)

- maybe less ca

First 16-45, then 16-85

-- hide signature --

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

Thanks for the help. I have the 16-85 on order from B&H.

The only real negative I see on the 16-85 is the lessening of starbursts, which isn't a huge deal to me. I have a cokin system, but I haven't used it in years. I find it creates all sorts of sunspots and flare when shooting into the sun and the graduated ones gave a partial color cast that was pretty strong.