an example of why the 50-135* doesn't suck

*nostatic* · 04-05-2008, 01:18 PM

Very tough conditions - odd light, ultra high contrast, and all the way at 135mm

dkittle · 04-05-2008, 03:59 PM

Love the mix of soft and hard textures - the B&W conversion is great - fantastic photo all round.
A good tool still needs a skilled practitioner :-)

hll · 04-05-2008, 04:07 PM

today i compared fa 50 1.7 with 50-135...
there was no winner for me!!!!
that's a great lens

*jsherman999* · 04-05-2008, 08:05 PM

Super shot nostatic, I love the composition and the B&W. You have some talent there.

The 50-135 can get you artistic shots like that, and it's also the best snapshot-zoom - walkin' around, kids sports, etc. It's so sharp wide open that it tends to reward minimal effort

as well as thoughtful compositions...

These are all straight jpeg, no PP, all wide open (f/2.8):

Previous cropped:

.

*nostatic* · 04-05-2008, 08:11 PM

love the 2nd pool shot. The thing that impresses me about this lens is the contrast. It is in the same ballpark as my 77mm ltd...probably gives 95% or so of the IQ. The 77 has a bit more "magic", but with the 50-135* I feel like I'm giving up very little. And as you said, for "walking around" it is great. You can cover a lot of ground and not have to fumble with lenses.

I'd like to find a copy of the 16-50* that is of the same quality. The 16-45 is better than it should be, but there is a big difference between f4 and f2.8 for the stuff I often shoot. Just swapping out between that lens and my new 35mm ltd, the extra speed made the difference between usable and not usable (very low light).

*Canada_Rockies* · 04-05-2008, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by nostatic

love the 2nd pool shot. The thing that impresses me about this lens is the contrast. It is in the same ballpark as my 77mm ltd...probably gives 95% or so of the IQ. The 77 has a bit more "magic", but with the 50-135* I feel like I'm giving up very little. And as you said, for "walking around" it is great. You can cover a lot of ground and not have to fumble with lenses.

I'd like to find a copy of the 16-50* that is of the same quality. The 16-45 is better than it should be, but there is a big difference between f4 and f2.8 for the stuff I often shoot. Just swapping out between that lens and my new 35mm ltd, the extra speed made the difference between usable and not usable (very low light).

I already have my 16-50, having bought it before I read all the problems. Today, I would be tempted to send it off to Mr. Pentax as soon as it arrived and have them do their magic on it. Mine works for me.

*jsherman999* · 04-05-2008, 09:44 PM

.

Originally Posted by Canada_Rockies

I already have my 16-50, having bought it before I read all the problems. Today, I would be tempted to send it off to Mr. Pentax as soon as it arrived and have them do their magic on it. Mine works for me.

My luck wasn't as good - 1st copy of the 16-50 was very obviously blurry at all focal lengths. 2nd was a bit better, but still not acceptable. My third is very good, and I'm keeping it, but It doesn't quite match the 50-135 for IQ - but it does have great sharpness and contrast, and it is 16 to 50mm f/2.8, HDM, weather sealed... it's a package deal, you get a whole lot for the price.

nostatic, I don't know if I can recommend trying to get a good one - it was pretty upsetting to go through two bad ones. I was going to give up after two, but there happened to be a 'good' one in a local store that I tried, so I changed my mind.

It does occasionally have some focusing problems in low tungsten light, but hey, so do several of my other lenses. In good light or natural light, it's wonderful all the time.

Here's a few that show my criteria for a 'good' 16-50 (sorry for the temporary subject hijack nostatic, but this is almost On Topic

16mm:

16mm, This is a crop:

16mm:

.

*nostatic* · 04-05-2008, 10:01 PM

i'll forgive the thread hijack if you'll excuse me playing with your first image (love it). A quick and dirty conversion.

qksilver · 04-06-2008, 07:45 PM

Another example of why the 50-135 doesn't suck

*hwblanks* · 04-06-2008, 08:01 PM

Amazing pics! If you've been reading some of my other posts, you'll know that I'm struggling with where I want to go next with my lens roadmap. For the tele end, this might be a good option, if a TC would work OK on it.

Heather

*Outlaw* · 04-07-2008, 01:23 AM

So tempted to go for the 50-135 but thinking that the 60-250 later in the year might be a better bet for me. Hopefully the quality will mirror that of the 50-135. Life's a gamble.

f8 · 04-11-2008, 04:18 AM

I have no example shots to explain what I've experienced with the DA* 50-135mm lens but yesterday I was shooting my friends' soccer game. The ease of use ment for me that I could follow the game through the lens for the entire game at 50mm and when I noticed something interesting was about to happen I just zoomed to 100-135mm and the focus was instantly spot on and I could take my shot.

Damn! I just love this lense!

*calicojack* · 04-11-2008, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by hwblanks

Amazing pics! <snip> For the tele end, this might be a good option, if a TC would work OK on it.

Heather

There are other threads on this list somewhere that talk about using the Tamron 1.4X TC with this lens. It appears to work fine (including the focusing motor). Don't forget that Pentax has a TC on the road map now also.
Brian
still saving my pennies for this lens

and · 04-11-2008, 05:06 AM

The 16-50 shots are very good, this lens seems to be very good when you can get a good copy, too bad about the qc, I cant remember hearing this many problems with any other lens

**Buddha Jones** · 04-11-2008, 07:39 AM

The lens rocks the socks for sure. Between nostatics images and jsherms, I dont know if I wish I was at the falls more or that I had a family of my own to shoot. Both are great shots.