Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
44 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Old prime fanatic finally slips into the Zoom world, January 9, 2007
I was one of those holdouts that carried lots of prime lenses, disdaining zooms as "a compromise". No doubt, I missed some fine lenses because of this.
The lens that sold me on zooms is this lens, the 16-45 f/4 Pentax. The lack of distortion, the contrast, the fine color control, all finally convinced me that a zoom can perform some of the functions of a prime.
I've been using this lens for a while. In my studio, the 50mm primes have become the main portrait lenses with the digital cameras. But now, I'm not afraid to use a zoom lens on a job. A big step for me!
It extends quite far when zooming, a fact I don't like, and for those who care, the on-camera flash is blocked by the lens hood (I use studio strobe, so it's of no import to me). As a modern lens, it has a polycarbonate barrel (they don't seem to be inclined to make zooms in the Lmited series. Too bad).
If I could use it on the film cameras, I probably would. No aperture ring means it's definitely meant for the current cameras.
Despite all that, I highly recommend this lens. It's a great "walk around" lens, going from very wide to moderate telephoto (remember, it's for the APS-C sensors). Image quality is astounding to an old grouch who loves primes, and even for a lens in general it's right up there.
If you're faced with the choice of the kit lens or this lens, take the 16-45. If you are serious about your craft, or you make a living at it, it's well worth the price!
|
|
|
31 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Awesome lens, November 14, 2006
I bought this lens for my 35mm pentax camera, since I'll be buying one of the dslr bodies sometime. It is fantastic: very very sharp and with great saturated color. On par, sharpness-wise with my Zuiko (50mm f1.4 & f1.8, 85mm f/2) and Nikon primes, but with better color! The contrast is good as well, there are rumors that the lens underexposes a bit - perhaps it does, but that works well with film.
On a film camera, there's vignetting when you zoom wider than 21mm - but that's a nice special effect, a sort of semi-fisheye at 16mm. Also, using the supplied lens shade isn't a great idea when shooting with 35mm film cameras, as the vignetting starts early.
Overall, this is a super lens, the best zoom I've owned.
11/2007: I've been using this lens with a K100D with great results. The tone is if anything more concentrated on a digital body - though for some reason the slight underexposure trend does exist with digital but not film. The lens has decent close focus ability - your shots of kittens and flowers come out awesome!
I recently bought the 43mm Limited, and while it has greater resolution and tonality, and does better in low light, on a photographic (rather than pixel peeping) level the 16-45 is in the same league. I still highly recommend this lens as the best medium zoom value that Pentax offers.
|
|
|
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Pentax 16-45mm f4 is a Keeper., November 29, 2007
Ditto Dana G's review. I migrated from a pretty extensive Nikon film system, and have used all kinds of other brands of film camera equipment, either on assignment or as a community college photo instructor during the 70's and 80's. I tried a variety of zooms, including varifocals with ELD glass. They were visibly softer than their equivalent single-focal-length counterparts. I noticed this after I had spent a long time using one particular varifocal. One day I switched back to a prime and when the prints came in, WOW! You could even tell with a casual glance at a 3X5 proof, that there was a huge difference. And the wide angle range in those 1970'5 and 80's zooms alway seemed extra soft and distorted. So I just gave up on zooms until I experienced digital.
I'm not one of those people who photographs charts. But I've a LOT of experience looking at real world images. In fact, as long as the lens seems to be working I don't really pay attention to it. However, in this case, I was shooting some photos of rocks along the Maine coast, from a tripod, and I decided to try to use a few Pentax prime lenses--a 40mm SMCP DA 2.8 and the Pentax FA 50mm 1.4--just to see if zooms had improved. All shots were in the 35-60 mm range, around f5.6-f8. When I uploaded these images into Photoshop, I was flabbergasted. The 16-45 mm gave nicer color and was at least as sharp as the two primes. Since then, I've had occasion to compare it against my Pentax DA 14mm 2.8, and I haven't noticed any real-world difference at the wide range either. But it's the fact that, if there were a difference, I would have to look really, really hard to see it that impresses me!
I find that I use the !6-45 more than any other lens that I own. I purchased it as an "upgrade" from the kit lens. And, as an aside, the Pentax K10D seems as if it were custom designed for migration from film or prosumer digital. The value for the money in this system is unmatched by any other maker. Amazon's latest body price=$530 after rebate. Not bad for a camera with shake control, self cleaning ccd's and the build-quality of a $1,500 Nikon.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
