16-45 vs 16-85 (in the 16-45 range)

I took a 16-45 on several hikes and liked it a lot, but my used copy has a defect and so I'm sending it back.   I am tempted to buy a new 16-4t, but since I already have the 16-85mm zoom I wonder how the 16-45mm zoom compares to the 16-85mm zoom in the 16-45mm range.

The 16-45mm zoom weighs 15 ounces to the 16-85mm zoom's 19 ounces; so there is a four ounce advantage to carrying  the 16-45mm lens if I don't need the 46mm to 300mm range or if I'm carrying something else to cover that or part of that range.

But if the 16-85mm zoom exceeded the 16-45mm zoom in image quality by a noticeable degree, I might hesitate to buy another 16-45.  I already know that the 16-45 is weak in the upper RH corner at some focal lengths (at least my copy), and the 16-85 is not.  But most of the areas photographed seems pretty good.

Does anyone have any data on how the 16-45 compares to the 16-85 in the 16-45 focal lengths?

Lawrence

If you have both lenses, you can probably do the test yourself.

The 16-45 has constant max aperture of F4, but other than that, I expect the newer 16-85 to beat it in terms of image quality.

LightBug wrote:

If you have both lenses, you can probably do the test yourself.

Yeah, but I bought the 16-45 used from KEH and discovered a piece of plastic (or thin metal) to have broken off inside the lens and it seems to be resting on the aperture blades; hence I'm sending it back within KEH's 14-day return period limit.

The 16-45 has constant max aperture of F4, but other than that, I expect the newer 16-85 to beat it in terms of image quality.

Yeah, perhaps, but Pentax is still selling the 16-45, at least on Amazon, and you'll pay a bit more for it than for the 16-85.

Lawrence

Historicity wrote:

Yeah, perhaps, but Pentax is still selling the 16-45, at least on Amazon, and you'll pay a bit more for it than for the 16-85.

If that's new, it's old stock. If you look closely you'll see it isn't sold by Amazon or Pentax directly, it's "sold by ...". The 16-45 hasn't been produced for a while now.

Mark Ransom wrote:

Historicity wrote:

Yeah, perhaps, but Pentax is still selling the 16-45, at least on Amazon, and you'll pay a bit more for it than for the 16-85.

If that's new, it's old stock. If you look closely you'll see it isn't sold by Amazon or Pentax directly, it's "sold by ...". The 16-45 hasn't been produced for a while now.

Actually, it is being sold by Pentax, but Amazon says it is the last one. Hmmm, may be now or never.

Whoops.  While it says "by Pentax" in the initial Amazon display, when I called up more information it says that another outfit was the actual seller; so you are right.

Lawrence

I have both of them. In my experience the 16-85 is much better. Especially in day light condition. Also 45mm is the extreme on the 16-45 where its the sweet spot on the 16-85. The constant f-4 in my opinion is a marginal advantage. Also the 16-45 has only 6 aperture blades while the 16-85 has 9 if I'm not mistaken that's so much better when you shoot into the sun or other light sources. Its extremely flare resistant too and the out of focus area are much smoother.

However people complain about the wobbly built 16-45 I found out its more forgiving when dropped...... But that's an entirely different issue on my part.

Ulrich

These are my picture in this group with the 16-85: https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax_da_16-85/pool/uloo

Uloo wrote:

I have both of them. In my experience the 16-85 is much better. Especially in day light condition. Also 45mm is the extreme on the 16-45 where its the sweet spot on the 16-85. The constant f-4 in my opinion is a marginal advantage. Also the 16-45 has only 6 aperture blades while the 16-85 has 9 if I'm not mistaken that's so much better when you shoot into the sun or other light sources. Its extremely flare resistant too and the out of focus area are much smoother.

However people complain about the wobbly built 16-45 I found out its more forgiving when dropped...... But that's an entirely different issue on my part.

Ulrich

These are my picture in this group with the 16-85: https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax_da_16-85/pool/uloo

Ulrich,

Thanks.  Your comment about the 16-45 being more subject to flare is consistent with my experience with it on 2-5-17.  That could have been the reason my 16-45 & K3 became confused and over-exposed several shots -- maybe.  There was a piece broken loose inside the lens so it is going back to KEH, but there were things I liked about the lens -- not enough to make me spend $565 for a new (albeit from old stock) copy however.

Still, Photozone or some review outfit like that rated the 16-45 above the newer 16-50.  That is, the build of 16-50 was superior but the image quality of the 16-45 was better.

Lawrence

I too was tempted to 'upgrade' my DA16-45 to the 16-85. After perusing many 16-85 shots I came to the conclusion that IQ-wise the 16-45 was better. My copy is sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. It is only at 16mm and f4 that the corners begin to go slightly soft. The designers were obviously aware of this - the 16-45 could be f3.5something at 16mm but the aperture closes slightly to maintain the f4 limit.

Maybe I have an unusual copy

I am happy with my copy of the 16-45, too.

I returned the first one I received because there was a lot of wobbling of the front part, and the edges were never sharp.

The second copy I am still using is good. No wobbling, and sharp from edge to edge. And still fine after 5 years of use.

I bought it in 2011 for 199€. Great value, especially for this price.

I don't have the 16-85. I am a bit tempted. But as I have several lenses in the longer range (A50/1,4 DA 70/2,4 F 100/2,8 macro, Tokina ATX-pro 28-70/2.8), it is no really necessary. Might be practical in some situations, avoiding lens changes. For the time being I will stick to what I have.

Best regards

Klaus

kh1234567890 wrote:

Maybe I have an unusual copy

flektogon wrote:

Historicity wrote:

Uloo wrote:

I have both of them. In my experience the 16-85 is much better. Especially in day light condition. Also 45mm is the extreme on the 16-45 where its the sweet spot on the 16-85. The constant f-4 in my opinion is a marginal advantage. Also the 16-45 has only 6 aperture blades while the 16-85 has 9 if I'm not mistaken that's so much better when you shoot into the sun or other light sources. Its extremely flare resistant too and the out of focus area are much smoother.

However people complain about the wobbly built 16-45 I found out its more forgiving when dropped...... But that's an entirely different issue on my part.

Ulrich

These are my picture in this group with the 16-85: https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax_da_16-85/pool/uloo

Ulrich,

Thanks. Your comment about the 16-45 being more subject to flare is consistent with my experience with it on 2-5-17. That could have been the reason my 16-45 & K3 became confused and over-exposed several shots -- maybe. There was a piece broken loose inside the lens so it is going back to KEH, but there were things I liked about the lens -- not enough to make me spend $565 for a new (albeit from old stock) copy however.

Still, Photozone or some review outfit like that rated the 16-45 above the newer 16-50. That is, the build of 16-50 was superior but the image quality of the 16-45 was better.

Lawrence

Pentax stopped the DA 16-45 production around 2008. Even when its price was highest, it didn't go above $350-400. I've got my for $400 (Disney) bucks. I do not have the DA 16-85 but I can imagine that it is better. If you want something in between, there is still the DA 17-70/4, or a similar Sigma lens.

I checked ebay and they have a bunch of them; however I discovered that I wasn't up to taking a chance on another used lens quite yet.  But 2008?  That's a lot time for small photographic shops to keep new ones on hand.  I've bought a couple of used lenses that sellers claimed were new however; so I have to decide whether to take a chance on iffy sales. 

Thanks

Lawrence

Lawrence

These are my picture in this group with the 16-85: https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax_da_16-85/pool/uloo

My complements and respect--some really beautiful work there.

bobD

The 16-85 is WR, longer range, bit better quality, has less CA especially. Except for some weight and volume reduction I see no reason for having a 16-45 if you have a 16-85 already.

I have both of them. The 16-85 has a better build quality and a quieter af. I haven't warmed up to it though, as it seems to never focus right. IQ wise, I can't tell much difference between the two. I miss the close focus ability at wide angle the 16-45 had. Also, the 16-45 was often criticised for blocking the pop up flash at 16mm, yet the 16-85 has flash vignetting at all focal lengths. Also, I'm not a fan of the focus ring on the 16-85.

GossCTP wrote:

I have both of them. The 16-85 has a better build quality and a quieter af. I haven't warmed up to it though, as it seems to never focus right. IQ wise, I can't tell much difference between the two. I miss the close focus ability at wide angle the 16-45 had. Also, the 16-45 was often criticised for blocking the pop up flash at 16mm, yet the 16-85 has flash vignetting at all focal lengths. Also, I'm not a fan of the focus ring on the 16-85.

GossCTP,

My 16-85 focuses okay and I haven't had a problem with vignetting except in rare lighting situations , but I like the idea of the 16-45 coupled with the 55-300 for certain sorts of hikes.  After sending back the 16-45 I mentioned above (with the broken piece on the aperture blades) I found another one being sold by Adorama and sent for it.  I haven't used it yet but physically it is in much better shape than the one I sent back.

There is a good deal of hit and miss as well as subjectivity in regard to lenses.  No lens maker has the level of quality control that would guarantee that each individual lens is exactly like every other lens being produced.  It sounds as though my 16-85, for example may be better than yours . . . although I should add that the one time I actually tested the lens by comparing it with the 18-135 (two different outings were involved) the 18-135 surprised me by producing  better, perhaps a little better than those of the 16-85, but the lighting on the two days was different and I don't really believe that day after day the 18-135 would out-perform the 16-85.  On the other hand I think that the profile used for the 18-135 in Lightroom brings the performance of the 18-135 much closer to the 16-85 such that taking the 18-135 on days when I want to go light makes much more sense to me.

But if I wanted to use the 55-300 on a hike, what would I use to cover the focal lengths below 55?  I have the 16-84 and 18-135 but I like the idea of avoiding the overlap.  I have primes I could use but which one or ones should I take, the 15, 21, 23, 35 or 40?  I like primes, but I also like the idea of a 16-45 if I can get a good copy.

Lawrence