Which WR "standard" zoom

[mountainvisions]

After thoroughly evaluating Pentax vs Fuji, I've decided on a K-3ii. The popup flash means less to me

than GPS, astrotracer, and pixel shift. The X-T1 is very compelling and so is the fuji lens lineup. If I

wasn't invested in Pentax and didn't like where Ricoh is taking it, I'd be with Fuji in a heartbeat. I

already love their compacts.

 

 

So, now the question, the one thing my system has always lacked. A weather sealed standard zoom.

And looking at the Pentax lineup, I'm not surprised I never bought one.

 

 

Sadly, Pentax really doesn't offer much here.

 

 

Choices:

 

 

18-135 (slow, and not as good at the 16-85)

16-85 (slow, a fixed f/4 would have been ideal)

16-50 (mixed bag)

20-40 (seems to be soft at the edges)

 

 

Unfortunately, that's a fairly sad lineup.

 

 

Optically the 16-85 is best, but nothing special at 16. The 20-40mm would be fine from a speed

standpoint, but it seems to need to be stopped down to f5.6 to shine. I do like all its other

characteristics, flare, contrast, and bokeh, but it's really not what I expected from a short variable

aperture zoom, especially at the edges.

 

 

If I'm not going whether sealed, well, the Sigma 18-35 really looks nice. But it's a monster.

 

 

The 16-50 seems like a mixed bag for a flagship standard 2.8 zoom. I'm OK with gambling on the SDM as my 50-135 DA* has been fine.

 

 

I'm a little confused why Pentax lacks such a lens. Thoughts? And of course thoughts on the current

options.

[john_shriver]

<p>The plain old Pentax-DA 18-55 WR is a fine lens, better than most of it's competitors. Don't worry much about lens speed, not nearly so important today with the excellent high-ISO performance of the K-3ii.<br>

I would expect a Pentax-DA* 16-50 bought new to have the newer more reliable SDM motor. But it's not WR, which is one of your requirements.<br>

For when you need lens speed, also buy the Pentax-FA 35/2.0, and you'll also have a full-frame lens for the future.</p>

[hinman]

<p>Justin, I have the same dilemma. I will think it will boil down to your usage. Go with 16-50 for low light and I know it has the SDM problems but a used copy in good standing will cause in low to high $400 range. A bargain if you can get a reasonable good copy. </p>

<p>For general purpose, I will toss a coin to pick one over the other between the 16-85 and 18-135. Matt loves his copy of 18-135 and I love Matt's outputs on 18-135. The 16-85 is heavier and slightly a touch better on the corners. Both have their pros and cons as in better range vs better corners in wider aperture. </p>

<p>The 18-55 WR is not a bad choice either if casual and light-weight is your criteria.</p>

[ross_keele]

As others have mentioned, all of the choices will be a compromise of some kind in this line-up. Online data suggests the

16-50 is a bit sharper than the 16-85 at smaller apertures at the 16mm end, which would benefit things like landscapes,

but the difference isn't that large. If you just account for a similar light gathering range of f4+ on the 16-50, and f3.5+ on

the 16-85, they are both fairly comparable, with the 16-85 having a bit of an edge in the 50mm range. The 16-50 has

challenges with chromatic aberrations, unless you don't mind managing that in post-processing. Otherwise you are really

trading the f2.8-3.5 light gathering and DOF advantage of the 16-50 for the 50-85mm range advantage of the 16-85.

Some photographers also reference differences in rendering, adding a more subjective artistic element to the decision.

 

Despite some early comments on the edge performance of the 20-40, data like that found on DxO, suggest it is actually

quite a nice flat sharpness profile from f4 on, although diffraction seems to hit a bit sooner at smaller aperture than on

something like the 16-50. With that lens you are gaining light weight, craftsmanship and Limited lens rendering at the

expense of focal range and some light gathering relative to the other normal zooms.

 

I was using a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 prior, and while I enjoyed it, I eventually picked up a used 16-50 with a replaced SDM,

to go along with my DA 12-24 and DA* 60-250. Not much was objectively known at that time about the 16-85 so I didn't

consider it, but I find the rendering of the 16-50 is a good fit for this trio of zooms. That said, I jones for a light travel setup,

where the Limited 15mm would pair nicely with the 20-40 and the HD 55-300 WR.

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Don't forget the remarkably sharp DA 17-70mm . It's still available at a very tempting low price. http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-17-70mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001AZ8N6M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459523708&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+17-70mm It has the SDM motor and mine has not given me any trouble. AND...it's a constant f/4. And you get a warranty for what that's worth (only a year though). Is very sharp with ultra pleasing color and tonality. Has a quasi- waterproofing in that there is a black gasket ring where the lens meets the body mount. Going fast, however. Grab one quickly as it is recently been discontinued.<br>

Got a great review back in the day http://www.photozone.de/pentax/408-pentax_1770_4</p>

<p>Having said all that, I highly recommend also the 16-85mm. It just feels good in your hands and is a joy to use. Is also WR. Also super quiet DC focus. Also extreme close focusing. It's super sharp and like a 16-45mm on steroids but with none of the weirdness the 16-45mm had., like the reverse zooming. Also got a great review http://www.photozone.de/pentax/903-pentax_1685_3556 </p>

[mountainvisions]

John,

 

I'm not so concerned with the SDM it's a cheapish fix and it really only seemed to fail on early

lenses. But the 16-50 IQ is very similar to the 20-40 in terms of edge sharpness. The 20-40, however,

has many good qualities over the 16-50. But the 16-50 has 4mm on the wide and 10 on the long and

a faster constant max.

 

Also, all the DA* lenses are weather sealed. Technically they have the highest level of sealing vs.

The WR.

 

Either one is fine with me, I'm not looking to shoot in a monsoon, I just want to not have to worry in

harsh conditions, like a rain forest, the beach or the desert. And I do often shoot in less than fair

weather. I'm just careful with my lenses or use beater lenses (like my 28-70 f/4)

[mountainvisions]

Hin,

 

I like your rationale.

 

 

Let me clarify. Although higher iso negates some need

for fast glass limited DOF or isolating focus still requires

wider apertures.

 

 

So basically, I'm looking at the best option for edge

sharpness with the fastest aperture. I already have the

15mm, 21mm, 30mm Sigma, and 43mm limited for

compactness. What I'm really looking for is a harsh

conditions lens for when changing lenses is either

impossible or inconvenient. I really liked how the 20-40

fit into my system for travel and backcountry adventure,

but I'm a little skittish of its edge performance from f2.8-

4. If it sharpened up at f/4 it would be a winner in my

book.

 

 

I'd probably setup my travel kit like this, 15mm, 20-40,

30mm f/1.4 and depending on what I expected to shoot,

either 50-135 or 70mm

[stemked]

<p>I only have one in the range that is WR, and that the 18-55. Just as John noted it is a surprisingly nice lens. I love the weight on it. Anyway...<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18124488-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /><br>

Trust me. Not many people would want to take expensive lenses where I drag mine. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Justin, I do understand reconsidering and further investigation. But you might be best off to stick with the Limited zoom after all. As you say, it has many advantages. I have not yet seen any good test of the 20-40mm LTD except for the one in POP Photo some months ago, perhaps one year ago. It got a fine rating with their DXO setup. The double-page sample photo they shot with the lens featured in the same issue looked really good edge to edge. I cannot recall the aperture used. It may have been f/4. The photo also contained straight lines near the edges, which exhibited remarkably low distortion. I'd have to dig to see if I still have it to tell you which month to look for in the library to see for yourself.</p>

<p>I would also consider getting one, but I love my (unfortunately not WR) fairly compact Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG. For WR, as Hin relates, I have found my copy of the DA 18-135mm has been giving me very good results, despite its low rating by Photozone, which was mostly based on edge performance at the long end. It is very compact, very well-made, with silent and accurate AF, but of course not a Limited. The long end I just use to zoom in for close-ups, not being concerned about the edges. If used as a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens it checks out pretty darn good, edges and all, though the new DA 16-85mm may be yet better edge-wise</p>

<p>I would get the DA 16-85mm over the DA* 16-50mm (actually 16-47mm) unless f/2.8 is a necessity. I think the new lens will keep to f/3.5-4.5 to 50mm so you're about one stop off the DA* lens but have much greater range beyond 50mm. I believe the new lens has lower distortion, especially at 16mm, and is a bit smaller. It is also possible it may be useable on the K-1 as well from about 20mm, which would make it a great FF or APS-C kit lens. Photozone indicated very good edge performance. I have seen comparative images which illustrated superior edge performance with this lens. </p>

<p> </p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Sorry to disappoint but I tested the 16-85mm on an old Pentax full frame 35mm and it vignettes all the way from wide to tele. The older 16-45mm, however, is super sharp and only vignettes up to 20mm, thus it will become a very useful 20-45mm on the new K-1.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Where is the inexpensive rigid 18-55mm WR kit lens on your list? Or what are the shortcommings of that one?<br>

I did not research zooms, am really happy with the 12-24mm so far and mounting the unsealed old 18-55mm's Samsung clones for convenience in broad day light. <br>

I don't really rely on Pentax' unspecified "kind of weather sealed" - I'm a biker, occasionally severely soaked in the rain, so I guess I'd be better off with real underwater gear but the Nikon 1 system seems too tiny sensored and the Leica X way too expensive...<br>

In general I am torn about zooms. - I had too many falling apart in the past to happily spend lots on them and feel getting away with the consumer stuff. I also don't like heavy lenses very much. <br>

If youb really need weather sealed maybe go for the 16 -85? - IDK why one would need fast glass in the rain, when SR and high ISO are at hand</p>

[snik75]

<p>If size isn't a priority, I'd go with 16-85. I find the results from the 18-135 to be perfectly usable, and the 20-40 better IQ. I guess I don't care much about corners, as I've never noticed them being problematic. I had a 16-50 for a while, and while it had to go back for an unrelated issue, I wasn't that impressed that the IQ was any better than the 20-40, and possibly worse. I prefer small size, so I will stick with the DA limited zoom. But it would be tempting to get the wider range of the 16-85 if IQ was about the same.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Well Wayne, that settles that. I am glad you did the test of the DA 16-85mm on a FF body. I've been hoping somebody would. Too bad the DA 16-45mm is not WR, but it remains a top lens. Still, the DA 16-85mm has exhibited exceptionally fine test results for APS-C use.</p>

<p>Evidently, it is difficult to design a WA lens with very high quality edge performance, especially at wider apertures. The other non-WR Pentax zoom lenses that succeed very well are the DA 12-24mm f/4 and DA 17-70mm f/4. </p>

 

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Michael,<br>

If it's any consolation, the 17-70mm is a "little bit" WR in that it does have one gasket that seals where the lens mount mates with the camera body. Pentax has never claimed it was weatherized but have made oblique references to those qualities. I own one so I know about that gasket. I suspect the other things in the lens like where the lens tubes slide together are not weatherized. However, "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king."</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I don't see why Pentax does not continue updating the rest of their lens models to WR like they did the kit lens and DA 55-300mm, which is now better than ever. I had the original, damaged the lens barrel edge including filter threads, so I decided to replace it with the HD WR version. I've been pleasantly surprised to find I'm getting even better results with the new version! A DA 12-24mm f/4 HD WR would certainly be nice! </p>

<p>I guess the new DA 16-85mm is to be a replacement for both the DA 16-45mm and DA 17-70mm. Like Justin said, too bad it is not f/4, but that may not be possible while keeping size down and quality the same as the present model.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>What about the new 24-70mm f2.8 ?</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>I have only the WR 18-55 and it truly is a remarkable little lens. In fact it is quite good and I have had it out on days that would scare the kajeebies out of most Canikon owners. Pentax in my opinion does lead the way in this dept.<br>

<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iBYV8Pk3Az0/Vq6vj6c0jNI/AAAAAAAAESk/Kfjl8bS58r0/s1600/IMGP3650.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></p>

<p><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3hDF_Rl_bgw/Vq6vlQIHfHI/AAAAAAAAES8/YE9DwW56TZ8/s1600/IMGP3656.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></p>

<p><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mXNlfOOY6IQ/Vq6vnFSKtPI/AAAAAAAAETM/laJP0tok4Zk/s1600/IMGP3729.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></p>

 

[Javier Gutierre]

<p><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2aiLyue6MNA/Vo3FbzGbcPI/AAAAAAAAELA/NFyeNrlVs-A/s1600/i%2Bphone%2B%25282%2529.JPG" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I have both the 18-135 and the 16-50. Both are pretty handy on a regular basis with the 18-135 getting lots of adventure shooting like skiing and mountain biking. It's probably not the sharper of the two but is much lighter, smaller, and worth less so it comes out on those kinds of outings. If I'm going for a trek and also want to shoot some photos, this is a good option.<br>

<br /> The 16-50 is handy for the speed, IQ, wide end, and it's substantial and tough. If I'm there solely to shoot I'm likely to bring this and maybe the 60-250 depending on what I'm after. It does fringe, especially wide open at the edges but LR takes care of that so easily I don't consider it much of a factor. If you don't mind its heft and 77mm filter requirement it is probably the better of the two. </p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>I agree with Javier. Too many people spend too much time trashing the 18-55mm WR and probably not enough time using it. Scroll through these shots all taken with this lens. Click on the thumbnail and enlarge it to take a closer look . Not bad, eh?<br>

<br /> <a href=" target="_blank">

[duane_mills]

<p>Justin, your budget seems good for a different approach...why not pick up an inexpensive 18-55 WR (maybe even pre-owned) that can be used in harsh environments (and won't break the bank if it gets damaged) AND a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Art? You'll get the best of both worlds. Plus at f1.8 you'll get a similar depth of field with a K-3II that you'd get on a K-1 with an f2.8 lens....just a thought. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>The main problem with the 18-55, is that if I want to make that much compromise, I'd probably opt to just carry my Fuji X20 around. If I'm going through the trouble of a DSLR, I definitely want the best results I can get. By no means am I saying the 18-55 is a dog, quite the opposite from what I've seen, I'm just not sure for me it's a compromise that makes sense.</p>

<p>After thinking about it more and more, I think the 20-40mm makes the most sense. Yes, it's not as sharp as I'd like at f/2.8 or f/4 at the edges. It seems optimized for 20-30mm. Overall, for what Pentax was charging when it was released, it seems like a lot of compromises were made. But...</p>

<p>Like any lens, it depends how you are planning to use it. For me, I want something that obviates the need to protect or change my DA Limiteds in harsh conditions. It also fits in nicely with a 15mm.20-40/70mm travel/landscape kit that probably isn't much bigger than the two zooms. If I toss in a 35mm f/2 or 43mm Limited, I have speed as well in the normal range (and my panorama lens). Although I was hoping it was sharper wide open, I don't often shoot wide open. I also like all the other characteristics of the lens. Size, overall IQ stopped down, flare resistance, edge to edge sharpness (stopped down), lack of CAs, etc. make it definitely more appealing. Obviously I'd love for it to be perfect at f/2.8, who wouldn't?! </p>

<p>I do think I'll also pick up a 16-85 at some point, which would be my compromise lens, aka, my kit lens. </p>

<p>The 18-135 was a good lens when I had it for a review. I did like it, but I feel like the slightly better IQ of the 16-85. along with the 16mm end, would be preferable to me since if I took that lens, I'd probably leave my limiteds at home and just take a 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 for when I needed a fast(er) lens. </p>

<p>I guess we've all figured out one of my pet peeves in photography is soft edges. It's why I no longer own any of those super sharp Sigma normal/wide angle primes. Great centers, poor edges. Drove me nuts. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Your reasoning sounds logical to me, Justin. I thought about the nice little DA 20-40mm LTD myself for its compactness with extra high quality. But then in my case I already have my 18-135mm and new little 18-50mm WR lenses for wet conditions, and my other Limited primes for compact extra high quality. I do think Pentax erred in the rather expensive new 28-105mm WR FF kit lens instead of a 24-someting WR, which could be useful with APS-C bodies as well, and still have some wide angle. It may be wise to not delay in ordering a Pentax lens, however, as there appears to be a temporary big savings going on for some of them, at B&H anyway. You may need to put the lens into your cart from the list of lenses rather than from the individual lens page, if the price reduction doesn't come up individually.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to find out how you like your new Pentax outfit!</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Zooms are always a tough compromise. I'm not sure who you think has a better lineup than Pentax though in this regard, especially once you add WR to your requirements. I suspect that optically, the 20-40 or 16-85 are the best choices, the most likely to give you that IQ boost that approaches what you'd get with primes.</p>

<p>My current standard zoom is the 17-70/4, though I've never been all that pleased with the focusing, and it isn't fully sealed either. It is competitive with but probably not completely better than Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 17-70/2.8-4. It along with the DA* 16-50 are probably the 'best of the rest', Pentax-wise. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Zooms are always a tough compromise. I'm not sure who you think has a better lineup than Pentax though in this regard, especially once you add WR to your requirements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true. And compactness is another preference. However, I was expecting a little more from a 2x zoom with a $1000 price tag. I think overall I'm disappointed Pentax has so few WR lenses. For instance the 12-24, 14, 15mm are all unsealed. So no wide angles either. And the 16-50 is almost 10 years old, it's time for a refresh, perhaps improving the lens a bit at the wide and wide open end. I think updating the coating to the HD would probably have the most effect on zooms with more elements.</p>

<p>That said, I've really looked at user reviews from photographers (vs. test freaks) and also at larger images available around the web (flickr and such) from folks using the 20-40, and overall I think it's a very good lens. And for the $500-600 it currently sells for new, it's probably not severely overpriced. If I can land one for $500, factoring in the size and sealing, I have a feeling I'll be very happy with it for landscapes and general outdoors photography.</p>