DA 14mm vs DA* 16-50mm

[avian]

A question for people who have used both the DA 14mm and DA* 16-50mm.

When comparing the quality of shots from the DA* 16-50mm at its widest angle to the DA 14mm, which generally comes out on top? Presuming the DA* is a good copy of course. Can it do as well with sharpness around the edges, particularly at f/4 or above? Much difference in colours and contrast between the two?

Just trying to work out which lens to get first to kick off a usable collection, I only have the kit lens at the moment. This lens will mostly be used for landscapes etc while camping/hiking, and the plan is to get a 50-135mm afterwards.

Any help appreciated!

[ftpaddict]

While I've never used either in person, I do think the 16-50 has certain benefits (SDM motor, weather sealing, ZOOM!). If you get a good copy, you'll be very happy with it.

The only loss is 2 mm.

[creampuff]

To me the DA 14mm is definitely sharper, but then again it is a prime lens.
The 2 mm difference in focal length is very noticeable.

[Lance B]

I have both the DA14 and the DA*16-50 f2.8. Some points to consider:

The DA14 is only 2mm wider but this translates to quite a bit more wide angle as it is actually about 14% wider as a percentage.

The DA14 has less distortion being 1.69% as compared to 3.55% for the DA*16-50 @ 16mm - figures according to Photozone tests.

According to Photozone, the DA*16-50 has ever so slightly more resolution than the DA14, but it is minimal. The DA*16-50 peaks at 2250LW/PH at f4 whereas the DA14 is 2178.5 at f8. As you can see, the DA14 is best stopped down to f8 where you would require it for landscapes whereas the DA*16-50 is best at f4.

If you need the versatility of a zoom you cannot go past the DA*16-50 as it is an excellent zoom.

If you really need and like to shoot with wide angle, then the DA14 is hard to beat. Having said that, the DA12-24 (which I also have) is also an excellent choice, the only drawback with it being that its closest focus is only 300mm whereas the DA14 is 170mm. Do not dismiss the close focus ability of the DA14 as it does come in handy at times when you want to make those dramatic wide angle near camera subject shots.

Also, the DA14 has distance scale on it which is great for making sure your DOF is where you require it, wheras the zooms do not have this feature. I purchased the DA12-24 just recently, but due to the close focus ability of the DA14 and the distance scale, I have not sold off my beloved DA14.

The DA14 is one of my most used lenses.

I hope I have been of some assistance and have not confused your decision more.

[wlachan]

Originally Posted by Lance B

According to Photozone, the DA*16-50 has ever so slightly more resolution than the DA14, but it is minimal. The DA*16-50 peaks at 2250LW/PH at f4 whereas the DA14 is 2178.5 at f8. As you can see, the DA14 is best stopped down to f8 where you would require it for landscapes whereas the DA*16-50 is best at f4.

Just checked, DA*16-50 is not on Photozone. From what I remember, the DA* was soft wide open at the wide end. But that's 2ndhand information. I am eyeing the DA14 too, but the DA15 Limited sure look sweeter.

[sewebster]

Originally Posted by wlachan

Just checked, DA*16-50 is not on Photozone. From what I remember, the DA* was soft wide open at the wide end. But that's 2ndhand information. I am eyeing the DA14 too, but the DA15 Limited sure look sweeter.

Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX (Nikon) - Lens Test Report / Review

But comparing the resolution numbers between systems seems dubious.

Originally Posted by avian

A question for people who have used both the DA 14mm and DA* 16-50mm.

When comparing the quality of shots from the DA* 16-50mm at its widest angle to the DA 14mm, which generally comes out on top? Presuming the DA* is a good copy of course. Can it do as well with sharpness around the edges, particularly at f/4 or above? Much difference in colours and contrast between the two?

Just trying to work out which lens to get first to kick off a usable collection, I only have the kit lens at the moment. This lens will mostly be used for landscapes etc while camping/hiking, and the plan is to get a 50-135mm afterwards.

Any help appreciated!

Avian,

If I was you I'll consider neither. The DA* zoom will need some stopping down @ 16mm for the best picture quality and the DA 14 is the first DA lens discontinued by Pentax and in any way you can't compare a prime with the wide end of a fairly long range zoom. The wide end zooms are in general under 2x range and my recomandation is to either wait for the DA 15 or buy now a DA 12-24 zoom.

Regards,
Radu

[superfuzzy]

Originally Posted by avian

A question for people who have used both the DA 14mm and DA* 16-50mm.

When comparing the quality of shots from the DA* 16-50mm at its widest angle to the DA 14mm, which generally comes out on top?
Any help appreciated!

The Pentax DA 12-24mm the typical alternative to a DA 14mm. Of course the DA* 16-50mm also has the QC issues which is still a deal breaker some of us.

[Alfisti]

Apart from the slightly closer focus and sclaes of the 14, the 12-24 really does give you so much more flexibility. 12-24 is a massive range, that sounds odd but the FOV is enormous and at 14 to 20mm you're slap bang in the sweet spot of the lens.

[kyrios]

DA 12-24mm is sharper than DA 14mm at the same FL and aperture.

DA 14 & DA 12-24 at F4.0

DA 14 & DA 12-24 ar F5.6 and F8.0

It's confirmed by Photozone.
interpolate the MTF chart of DA 12-24 from Photozone, then compare it with DA 14.
it will confirm the above test.

It will be shocked if Zoom beats prime this time.

kyrios

[creampuff]

Originally Posted by RaduA

Avian,

If I was you I'll consider neither. The DA* zoom will need some stopping down @ 16mm for the best picture quality and the DA 14 is the first DA lens discontinued by Pentax and in any way you can't compare a prime with the wide end of a fairly long range zoom. The wide end zooms are in general under 2x range and my recomandation is to either wait for the DA 15 or buy now a DA 12-24 zoom.

Regards,
Radu

On your comment about the DA 14mm f/2.8 what is your basis for making this ridiculous claim?

Pentax has not made any announcement that this lens is to be discontinued. It is still listed in the current lens roadmap, Pentax Japan website and US website. And it is still widely available retail.

[Marc Sabatella]

Originally Posted by creampuff

Pentax has not made any announcement that this lens [ DA 14 ] is to be discontinued. It is still listed in the current lens roadmap, Pentax Japan website and US website. And it is still widely available retail.

I wonder if somewhere in the DA 15 announcement, someone speculated that this might replace the 14? Or perhaps the fact that the 17-70 was said to replace the 16-45 got someone confused?

Anyhow, I agree - I don't see any reason to suspect the DA 14 has been discontinued.

[creampuff]

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

I wonder if somewhere in the DA 15 announcement, someone speculated that this might replace the 14? Or perhaps the fact that the 17-70 was said to replace the 16-45 got someone confused?

Anyhow, I agree - I don't see any reason to suspect the DA 14 has been discontinued.

Unfortunately that's the problem with some of the posts on this forum, making unwarranted claims and assumptions without any basis of fact.


Back to the issue, one of the reasons why one should not discount the DA 14mm is the fact that it's very good as far as distortion control and colour fringing. It is also an excellent lens for IR photography, showing no hotspotting. The DA 12-24mm does exhibit hot spots.
The DA*16-50mm makes a very handy lens for event photography.

[davebris33]

Originally Posted by Lance B

I have both the DA14 and the DA*16-50 f2.8. Some points to consider:

The DA14 is only 2mm wider but this translates to quite a bit more wide angle as it is actually about 14% wider as a percentage.

The DA14 has less distortion being 1.69% as compared to 3.55% for the DA*16-50 @ 16mm - figures according to Photozone tests.

According to Photozone, the DA*16-50 has ever so slightly more resolution than the DA14, but it is minimal. The DA*16-50 peaks at 2250LW/PH at f4 whereas the DA14 is 2178.5 at f8. As you can see, the DA14 is best stopped down to f8 where you would require it for landscapes whereas the DA*16-50 is best at f4.

If you need the versatility of a zoom you cannot go past the DA*16-50 as it is an excellent zoom.

If you really need and like to shoot with wide angle, then the DA14 is hard to beat. Having said that, the DA12-24 (which I also have) is also an excellent choice, the only drawback with it being that its closest focus is only 300mm whereas the DA14 is 170mm. Do not dismiss the close focus ability of the DA14 as it does come in handy at times when you want to make those dramatic wide angle near camera subject shots.

Also, the DA14 has distance scale on it which is great for making sure your DOF is where you require it, wheras the zooms do not have this feature. I purchased the DA12-24 just recently, but due to the close focus ability of the DA14 and the distance scale, I have not sold off my beloved DA14.

The DA14 is one of my most used lenses.

I hope I have been of some assistance and have not confused your decision more.

You need to do that for a living m8! what a great, helpful, succinct little comparison

[smigol]

I have to say that based on this discussion and the links provided, I have been able to satisfy my curiosity about the DA14mm and am officially interested in getting one of them.

Not that the zoom is off my list to get someday, I just am interested in primes at the moment.