Pentax 16-45mm f4
Hey everyone.
I recently picked up a Pentax K5 as a way for a "soft reset" for my photography since its been around 10 years since dropping my Nikon Dslrs for mirrorless cameras. Something more or less to play with and I have never owned any digital Pentax cameras so I figured now would be a good time to give them a shot. I was looking around for some lenses and I stumbled upon what seems to be a really good deal ($80) on a Pentax 16-45mm f4. I've spent most of my photographic life shooting primes and this has peaked my interest in an effort to try something different.
So I am curious if anyone on here has any experience with this lens?
Thanks!
Aaron
I have the 16-45mm f4.
I bought it with my K-3 II a few years back and took it on vacation.
For a zoom I was very pleased with the optics. The sharpness ranged from "pretty good!" to "was that my prime?". When it wasn't "wow sharp" I could give it a little bump in post-processing and be happy. Colors were also nice.
Likes:
- Constant f4: nice
- Non-rotating front element: nice
- Auto focus: "good enough" ... I don't have wild expectations here but it seems fine to me.
- Manual focus: also nice to work with
- Optics: great to fantastic.
- Value: awesome. punches above it's weight optically
- Screw drive: no funny motors to die on you
I still own the lens but I don't really use it much ( my daughter does though ). The only real issue with it is the build. It's not terrible but just average? To me it just felt a bit cheap mounted to a survive-the-apocalypse K3/K5. For example, the zoom does this hard plastic bang at either end. The barrel is a bit sloppy when fully extended and if I shake my lens it has a slight rattle. Again, not bad but just didn't give that awesome feeling. For the right price, and to fill a gap... it could be a great buy. I'd rather have good optics and sub-par build than sub-par optics and good build.
Cons:
- build ( clunky operation and wobbly barrel when extended )
- screw drive: loud? bah, screw drive doesn't really bother me
- not weather sealed ( this doesn't really bother me either )
All that said, I'm a fan of the Sigma lenses from that era ( EX line ). People love or hate the build on those. I like them. I have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX. To me it's a subtle but important step up from the 16-45 in both optics (subtle) and build (more than subtle). But, the Sigma would likely cost you more.
I'll throw up a few random shots I took on my trip with the 16-45 lens.
Uploaded files:
By the way, welcome to the forum Aaron!
I've never shot the 16-45, but I think @grover thoughts covered it really well. Other options could include the 18-135 which isn't too much more used (often $120ish nowadays). It's versatile and can be quite good. I shot with the DA 18-135 for years. That sigma 17-50 f2.8 is quite nice from what I hear and probably closer to $150-200.
I'm getting further off the topic, but the DA 35mm f2.4 is a cheap but good prime that I'm using right now. I have been extremely impressed by the quality for what is such a cheap lens. Feels cheap (plastic) but optically nice. Gives you that nifty fifty field of view on APS-C
Welcome to the forum, by the way! Thanks for joining us over here. Looking forward to seeing some shots and hearing more from you.
Thank you both for the feedback! I actually just scored a 35mm 2.4 off ebay for pretty cheap. excited for it to come in. I'm hoping this K5 pairs well with my Ricoh GR and GRiiix
I had one. Sold it to buy the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8.
The Pentax is light and a nice cheap lens I'd say.
I do recommend the 16-45mm f4 it usually does a great job.
Quote from grover on June 22, 2022, 9:15 pmI have the 16-45mm f4.
I bought it with my K-3 II a few years back and took it on vacation.
For a zoom I was very pleased with the optics. The sharpness ranged from "pretty good!" to "was that my prime?". When it wasn't "wow sharp" I could give it a little bump in post-processing and be happy. Colors were also nice.
Likes:
- Constant f4: nice
- Non-rotating front element: nice
- Auto focus: "good enough" ... I don't have wild expectations here but it seems fine to me.
- Manual focus: also nice to work with
- Optics: great to fantastic.
- Value: awesome. punches above it's weight optically
- Screw drive: no funny motors to die on you
I still own the lens but I don't really use it much ( my daughter does though ). The only real issue with it is the build. It's not terrible but just average? To me it just felt a bit cheap mounted to a survive-the-apocalypse K3/K5. For example, the zoom does this hard plastic bang at either end. The barrel is a bit sloppy when fully extended and if I shake my lens it has a slight rattle. Again, not bad but just didn't give that awesome feeling. For the right price, and to fill a gap... it could be a great buy. I'd rather have good optics and sub-par build than sub-par optics and good build.
Cons:
- build ( clunky operation and wobbly barrel when extended )
- screw drive: loud? bah, screw drive doesn't really bother me
- not weather sealed ( this doesn't really bother me either )
All that said, I'm a fan of the Sigma lenses from that era ( EX line ). People love or hate the build on those. I like them. I have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX. To me it's a subtle but important step up from the 16-45 in both optics (subtle) and build (more than subtle). But, the Sigma would likely cost you more.
I'll throw up a few random shots I took on my trip with the 16-45 lens.
I can only add: That says everything I had to coment.
I have had both, now I own the Sigma.
Grover covers everything you need to know, I believe. Great job!
