Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: HD 16-85 Measurbation Reviews

Friday, May 29, 2015

HD 16-85 Measurbation Reviews

Both are done by measurbators, but one with real-world scenes as the shooting targets and the other with test charts in a "lab":

http://digiphoto.techbang.com/posts/7658-pentax-16-85mm-f35-56-ed-dc-wr?page=1
(Tested with K-3, in Traditional Chinese)

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/903-pentax_1685_3556
(Tested with K-5 II)

The lens model seems to be fairly good. However, it arrives just too late, Canon and Sony had similar models many years ago, when APS-C DSLRs still shined. Nonetheless, I myself feel that the DA17-70 F4 would still be a better lens optically, because of its constant aperture but only a slightly shorter reach. For size and weight wise, the HD 16-85 is not a compact lens anyway.
Time (UTC +0800):
標籤： , , , , , ,

Comments (5)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
0 Vote up Vote down
Charlie's avatar

Charlie · 512 weeks ago

You said:
"I myself feel that the DA17-70 F4 would still be a better lens optically"

I doubt it :) The lenstip.com review revealed the worst flaring behaviour I ever saw. If you want to have a good laugh, look here: http://www.lenstip.com/175.9-Lens_review-Pentax_s...

I never imagined, how Pentax coatings can ever stink to this extent, I always thought until then, that SMC coatings would have a good reputation. These ghosting images also reveal the amount of decentering, which seems to plagues Pentax lenses since ever.

Talking about decentering: The Photozone-tested 16-85mm sample was only sharp on one half due to heavy de-centering. It seems that this issue gets worse and worse with Pentax lenses?

The bottomline seems: if you are keen on 17-70, then better go for Sigma, but not for the Pentax DA.

You said about the 16-85:
"it arrives just too late, Canon and Sony had similar models many years ago, when APS-C still shined"

Yes correct. To steal an already years-old lens design and modify it a little (to circumvent patent issues) wasn't a good idea. Nikon for example moved on from their old 16-85, they deliver their D7200 with their 18-105 and 18-140, two much more useful zoom ranges for most starters.
16-85 is an odd zoom range, it doesn't give you enough tele reach to be regarded as an allways-on travel lens. Pentax better should have replaced their pretty shitty 18-135 with a good 18-140 (having same price and same performance as Nikons) to be more competitive.
0 Vote up Vote down
ToetSFX's avatar

ToetSFX · 512 weeks ago

I can't think of anything negative about this lens.
0 Vote up Vote down
zosX's avatar

zosX · 512 weeks ago

Are you serious? I have a DA 17-70. Its a well used lens, but this lens crushes it in nearly every single way. It has a lot more resolution for starters. The 17-70 tends to misfocus all over the place at 70mm too. Its hit rate is astoundingly bad at times. I know its not just my copy too. The short throw coupled with SDM was a bad idea in terms of accuracy. Clearly they made the throw so short to help with the slow speed of SDM. It also has some wicked field curvature at 17mm and has some severe focus shifts at various apertures. Optically better? Really? The 17-70 is an optical mess IMO. On my K-3 at F8 it misfocuses for some reason and I need to sit down and test it sometime. I'd be glad to dump it for this 16-85 in a heartbeat. For low light I just switch to primes or my 20-40.
0 Vote up Vote down
zosX's avatar

zosX · 512 weeks ago

Quite honestly I regret not buying the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 and that is saying a lot because I generally only stick to Pentax lenses because I really prefer SMC and its rendering.
0 Vote up Vote down
Ian's avatar

Ian · 512 weeks ago

"For size and weight wise, the HD 16-85 is not a compact lens anyway."

Well golly gosh; more range = bigger lens. One would never have guessed that Rice.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)