DA* 16-50 photos

kskjon · 07-29-2007, 10:44 PM

Hello,

Ned Bunnell has posted a set of photos taken with the DA* 16-50, and imho it's looking gooood.

NED BUNNELL: My first DA* 16-50 shots

My apologies if this is already posted.

and · 07-29-2007, 10:58 PM

Interesting. Hm the shots are good, but I can imagine the same shots from the 16-45 being very similar? The 50-135 is impressing me more so far.

Edvinas · 07-30-2007, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by and

Interesting. Hm the shots are good, but I can imagine the same shots from the 16-45 being very similar? The 50-135 is impressing me more so far.

Looks like some people anticipating those DA★ lenses be like from other world. Wake up

DA 16-45mm is excellent in resolution at all focal lengths and at all apertures, it has very nice bokeh. Of course you would be able to take very similar pictures in a good light. However in a dim light DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 should be definately better

However DA 16-45mm is only constant f/4, it doesn'd have SDM motor, it doesn't have weather sealing and it has purple fringing problem. We still need to see DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 shot with very contrasty scenes to be able to see how DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 will perform regarding purple fringing.

Anyway, constant f/2.8, SDM motor, weather sealing and not worse than DA 16-45mm f/4 image quality (I hope they were able to eliminate PF) -- this what makes it DA★ lens.

and · 07-30-2007, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Edvinas

Looks like some people anticipating those DA★ lenses be like from other world. Wake up DA 16-45mm is excellent in resolution at all focal lengths and at all apertures, it has very nice bokeh. Of course you would be able to take very similar pictures in a good light. However in a dim light DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 should be definately better

However DA 16-45mm is only constant f/4, it doesn'd have SDM motor, it doesn't have weather sealing and it has purple fringing problem. We still need to see DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 shot with very contrasty scenes to be able to see how DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 will perform regarding purple fringing.

Anyway, constant f/2.8, SDM motor, weather sealing and not worse than DA 16-45mm f/4 image quality (I hope they were able to eliminate PF) -- this what makes it DA★ lens.

true

but then its not worth the almost 3x pricetag. I think Id rather have the 12-24 for dedicated, low distortion wide, and then a combination of the available primes up to and including 50mm, instead of the 16-50. but thats just me

darthkir · 07-30-2007, 01:07 AM

The most important thing that made me look forward to the DA* lenses is the inclusion of SDM. I truely believe that Pentax should SDM all their future lenses, DA* or not...

anomaly · 07-30-2007, 05:18 AM

These images are not as sharp as I would have liked. Perhaps he shot in jpg on a K10D?

Edvinas · 07-30-2007, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by anomaly

These images are not as sharp as I would have liked. Perhaps he shot in jpg on a K10D?

These images are resized and they are as sharp as Ned sharpened them before saving resized image.

You can't judge lens sharpness looking at resized images and moreover, sharpness isn't the only characteristic of good image quality

RMabo · 07-30-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by anomaly

These images are not as sharp as I would have liked. Perhaps he shot in jpg on a K10D?

He shot in RAW and only adjusted the white balance, no further adjustments has been made to the images. So they are not upsharpened in the RAW converter, as most other people do.

I find the images being fantastic quality, very sharp and detailed. Just look at the left eye of the girl in the first picture. It has amazing clarity. It is very clear to see the effect of the depth-of-field here - only the left eyeglob is sharp. I can't want better sharpness than that, that would be oversharpening.

I did have problems with the last image (the wine and the fruit), but I finally found that the focus was set on the bottle, the 1996 lettering and the leave. It is unsharp around it, and the fruit is also unsharp. This shows the limited depth-of-field. I wonder what aperture he shot it with... The last image would been improved by a smaller aperture and thus an increased depth-of-field. And perhaps he should have set the focus on the fruits instead of the bottle? I would have choosen another technique for the shot, but one can't fault the lens. It seems to be simply superb.
(I wonder if the wine was superb too?).

The small "thumbnails" on his page looks rather soft, yes, but when clicking on them... Boy, they are really good.

Take care
R

*gawan* · 08-05-2007, 03:17 PM

See also

DigitalFotoNetz.de :: Thema anzeigen - DA* 16-50 es ist da! ... und ein paar Bilder
bildercache.de - Die schnellste Art, Bilder gratis, kostenlos online zu stellen.

Duh_Vinci · 08-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by darthkir

The most important thing that made me look forward to the DA* lenses is the inclusion of SDM. I truely believe that Pentax should SDM all their future lenses, DA* or not...

100% agree, you took the words right out of my mouth!!!

Regards,
D

OPTMEKX& · 08-05-2007, 06:23 PM

I thougtht they are wonderful, the 5th one maybe out of focus a bit but the color rendition look excellent to me. The detail on that wicker chair and the throw pillow is vey reassuring. I think the DA*s will be as expected in typical Pentax fashion will retain that almost 3D effect without sacrificing the overall sharpness and having that "plastic look".

Cheers,

Rene R

BeerCur · 08-06-2007, 10:48 AM

FYI, some additional pictures, taken with the 16-50mm, have been posted on NED BUNNELL's blog.

Not bad, not bad at all.

~Matthew

kskjon · 08-06-2007, 11:40 AM

I just hope I'm among the first batch of 16-50's, although I doubt it.

FLASH · 08-06-2007, 03:40 PM

Amazing shots!....I'm using the 24~90 now, which gives me the the perspective I most favor. Given that, which of the new *lens should I try for?

FLASH

ZaphodB · 08-08-2007, 07:29 PM

Well since the 16-50mm only goes up to 50mm and the 50-135mm only starts at 50mm, the obvious answer is, both