Friends, Romans, Countrymen, Lend me your ears!

[SolracSelbor]

I would like your opinion on these two lenses, you know: pros, cons, contrasts, similarities...etc etc

I have never had a lens other than the pentax kit 18-55mm lens, and I really dig it. But i think one of these two lenses will suit me well.

The first lens:
PENTAX-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL[IF]SDM wide angle zoom lens
Beach Camera Link
Official Site Link

Second Lens:
PENTAX-DA 16-45mm f/4.0 ED/AL 3X zoom ratio

Official Site Link

Thanks for the help everyone!

BTW, heres a link to my photo gallery so that maybe you could give me feedback on whether or not these lenses will even suite my style of photography.

SolracSelbor's Gallery

 

[JNB]

Nice work, maybe a little heavy on the post, but still good stuff.

I don't know the Pentax glass, but I would have to ask if the lens in question is a replacement for or addition to the kit lens. Seeing that you can get quality images from the kit, I'd likely move to a range beyond that, keeping the kit as my second and even third lens.

I'm a Canon guy, and I have the 18-55 kit, 50mm f/1.8 prime, and 70-200mm f/4L. My next lens may be a replacement for the kit, or may be still another part of the range to play with. I've gotten some shots that surprise me with the 18-55, and I can't see replacing it just because the CW sez it's not "quality" glass. Hogwash.

I assume you, like most of us, aren't independently wealthy, so it's one lens at a time, maybe two in a year if we're real, REAL good. Looking at your work, I'd consider hanging on to the kit and going for a mid-to long zoom. Or a macro. Or a fast prime.

See what I mean?

Oh, and the 16-50 f/2.8 is the better of the two, in a New York minute.

 

[SolracSelbor]

Thank you,

Im really not sure whether I want to replace the kit lens or not. You see, im not too sure how much better the quality in my images will be with the new lens in comparison to the kit lens. I love taking scenic photos, I havent done too much with macro yet. I think having a telephoto would be nice, but like you said, I have to think long and hard before buying a lens because for me it's like one lens every 2-3 yrs (im a starving college student)

If i were to get a telephoto i would like something around 50-300mm thats cheap and AMAZING! Im sure those aren't too hard to find...

 

[SolracSelbor]

Oh, and the 16-50 f/2.8 is the better of the two, in a New York minute.

Heres what I dont understand too well, just because that lens has a greater aperture opening makes it that much better? Since it is a lens that concentrates a lot on landscape photos, wouldnt it be almost pointless to have such a low depth of field, therefore hardly ever using an aperture that wide? By using f/2.8 so much of the photos detail would gone that it would ruin it.....no?

 

[JNB]

Heres what I dont understand too well, just because that lens has a greater aperture opening makes it that much better? Since it is a lens that concentrates a lot on landscape photos, wouldnt it be almost pointless to have such a low depth of field, therefore hardly ever using an aperture that wide? By using f/2.8 so much of the photos detail would gone that it would ruin it.....no?

The aperture isn't fixed at f/2.8, it's just capable of opening that wide. You could still take it down to f/22. Not only that, but it allows for a much wider range of lighting conditions. I wouldn't consider a 16-50 to be solely a "landscape" lens, either. Portraiture, poor man's macro, architectural, a lot of stuff that you may not have considered. Also, to achieve a lens that's capable of f/2.8 across the range, it's going to be higher quality construction in general. There's a reason a 2.8 is more expensive than a 4, and a 1.8 even more. It also shoots better at & above f/8 than say, a f/5.6. It's just better glass, period.

The only reason not to get the fastest glass you can afford for a given lens, is, well, you can't afford it.

 

[Abstract]

I love taking scenic photos, I havent done too much with macro yet. I think having a telephoto would be nice, but like you said, I have to think long and hard before buying a lens because for me it's like one lens every 2-3 yrs (im a starving college student)

I think you answered your own question......don't get either lens. You really don't believe you need to.

Personally, the first lens I wanted to replace was my kit lens. It isn't a bad lens, but if I DO want to blur the background a bit, I want the option to do so. If I don't, I'll set the aperture to f/5.6 or f/8. I also wanted the ability to shoot under 4 times less light and still keep the same shutter speed. The Nikon kit lens was quite good, though. If you feel that getting a lens with a different focal length (eg: a telephoto lens) is more beneficial to you than replacing your kit lens, then get a telephoto. Or why not get an ultra-wide angle lens? It would give you more options when shooting landscapes.


The Pentax 16-50 mm f/2.8.......could this be a rebadged Tokina lens? It appears to be a new lens offered by Pentax. I have a feeling the Pentax lens is identical to the Tokina, but I can't be too sure. What are the chances of Tokina and Pentax both making a 16-50 mm f/2.8 lens at around the same time? The companies are somewhat closely associated to each other as well.
Anyway, you should also check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8. They may be cheaper. Also check out the Tokina 16-50 mm f/2.8 and see if you can get it cheaper than the Pentax.

 

[pdxflint]

I agree on two points made - One, you're covering the same range basically as the lens you seem pretty satisfied with, so probably look at either a wider zoom like a 10-20 or a longer lens like a 70-200. Two, generally any 2.8 zoom lens will be better than a slower lens because of the construction and glass quality to achieve decent images wide open. These are usually considered "pro" lenses. Of course some other lenses are also "pro" quality, like Canon's "L" series and many primes, but basically any f/2.8 zoom will be better than it's cheaper cousin, even stopped down.

No experience with the Pentax line here, and both lenses in question appear to be constant aperture, so they could be comparable in IQ. Something to consider is weight - do you want to lug around a heavy fast lens when something a bit slower and lighter will do?

For your landscape work, consider a wide prime for best IQ and less flaring in side lit shots, instead of basically replacing the kit zoom with a very similar lens.

 

[SolracSelbor]

Ahh so i see! The major reason I want to change the kit lens is becuase there just seems to be too much vignetting and chromatic aberration when wide open, the lens takes better shots at the zoom level than the wide level. But i see what your saying.

 

[pdxflint]

Ahh so i see! The major reason I want to change the kit lens is becuase there just seems to be too much vignetting and chromatic aberration when wide open, the lens takes better shots at the zoom level than the wide level. But i see what your saying.

Wide angle, wide open is the toughest task for a lens shooting digital (which is why the f/2.8 lenses cost so much, and are a big plus for photojournalism where light can't be controlled and you have to get the shot. For your landscape shots, though... just stop down a bit (half way, not all the way because too much stopping down can result in problems, too.)

Also, don't forget the wide primes. Less flare, better sharpness, optimal design for wide angle. Great landscape lenses. You still want to stop them down a couple of stops at least for ultimate sharpness, etc. but they're lighter and simpler. Something to consider - a lens where you aren't racking the zoom from one end to the other, imagine that...?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

The 16-50 f/2.8 lens uses the same lens barrel as the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8. The glass is supposedly different (Pentax ground and their own SMC coatings). It's going to be a lot better in compromising lighting conditions. But the main advantage is that it is built like a tank (matches the K10D body's build) it's weather sealed, and it's got the SDM motor in it! This means that the autofocus is a little faster and almost silent. I'd get the lens if I could afford it since it's much more versatile than the kit lens. But if you are getting along fine with the kit lens and still want to shoot similar scenes then check into the Pentax 12-24 mm zoom or the Sigma 10-20 mm zoom. These lenses are wider angle lenses, this means that they can capture more of a scene than the kit lens can. They are both variable aperture lenses just like the kit lens, and I've heard great things about both of them. More so about the Sigma since Nikon and Canon folks have it in their mount as well!

SLC