Question for 16-50mm owners - Page 58

dutch · 08-31-2008, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by maxwell1295

Nice Birman!

Lens looks good too...

nice guess, its actually a ragdoll

Thanks for the positive comments guys. Really happy with this lens already.

TiminyCricket · 08-31-2008, 11:41 PM

Beautiful cats! Beautiful pictures!

*Igilligan* · 09-01-2008, 12:01 AM

Great colors and the best sharpness of the series... That green with those blue eyes... very nice

-=JoN=- · 09-01-2008, 07:35 PM

Just started happening on saturday. Zoom gets stuck at 28mm coming in from 50mm, gets unstuck, and goes through (after some rocking back and forth) now, i noticed, it's stuck at 19mm and wont go all the way to 16mm. i dont want to force it. sometimes still get caught up in 28mm. IQ on it is great. now i fear i have to send it back to Pentax......

anyone else got this problem?....

-=JoN=- · 09-01-2008, 07:38 PM

I just unmounted it to look into it further...and i hear something in there...
lens was never dropped or mis-handled..
damnit

little laker · 09-01-2008, 08:07 PM

Sorry to hear about that Jon, although it isn't the first time I've heard about that happening with that lens

I guess add it to the list of bad lenses, and send it on it to Pentax.

Imagination4 · 09-02-2008, 10:34 AM

The first two DA*16-50mm lenses I had did have significantly more resistance at 28mm only zooming from either direction - almost as if there was hump to get over. My third and best one (but still not satisfactory) exhibited the same resistance at 28mm symptom, but to a much lesser amount. However, in all 3 cases the lens would zoom throughout its entire range. Maybe I just did not have any of them long enough.

PentaxPoke · 09-02-2008, 11:38 AM

I'm beginning to think there are 3 types of DA*16-50 people.

In decending order of number:

1) People who own one but do not know there is a problem with it (yet)
2) People who have had the lens (maybe several) and have given up due to a multitude of QC and design problems.
3) The merry privileged few that actually got a good copy, and know it.

FDM · 09-03-2008, 04:52 AM

A lot has been said, in this and other forums, about problems with the DA* 16-50. Softness, chromatic aberration, focusing issues, lemons... This lens just got a bad reputation, which is probably making some potential buyers look for alternatives.
I actually got a 16-50 for my K10d a few months ago and was initially a bit apprehensive about having made a bad choice. I have been using it as my walkaround lens (I also have a DA* 50-135, but I use it only in particular occasions). I now believe this is a good lens with a reasonable price tag. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens ever and CA is definitely an issue, but it takes more than shapness tomake a good photo and CA is easily corrected by software. I think this is a versatile, fast and well built lens.
QC issues have been mentioned as the reason for some of the problems, but I'm wondering whether some of the complains have a psychological factor behind them, influenced by all the bad comments.
I'm posting a few shots from my August trip to some of the Azores islands, taken with this lens. All photos were RAW-processed in Silkypix in the following manner (I do this procedure with all the photos I keep, independently of the lens used):
- CA correction.
- Cropping/rotation for improving composition.
- Tone curve adjustment for exposure tuning.

There are no award winners here, just vacation photos. Any comments are welcome. I think it would be especially interesting to know the feelings of other DA* 16-50 owners on this lens.

--

soccerjoe5 · 09-03-2008, 06:31 AM

did you resize these photos? you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen

**Peter Zack** · 09-03-2008, 06:40 AM

I find the same thing happens to some of my stuff on the site as well.

As for the lens, I've bought and returned one. but that was 8-9 months ago and we hear a lot less about the BF issues now. I'm certain that a few might be just user worries/error but most were real world problems.

The DA16-45mm I got to replace the 16-50mm is so good that I feel no desire to replace that lens. It's sharp and compact. WS isn't enough reason to take a chance again for a lens that optically may be no better and might be worse. My DA16-45 gets a ton of use and I've had it out in pretty rough weather without any issues.

IsaacEastgate · 09-03-2008, 08:41 AM

Some softness, but i guess thats because you have the aperture quite far open so the focus is small. Number 2 is a stunnner, and you got some great exposures there.

FDM · 09-03-2008, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by soccerjoe5

did you resize these photos? you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen

Yep, I uploaded the photos with a larger size and they were automatically resized, thus the softness. I should have noticed that! This way the post ends up missing the point. Sorry about that.

*k100d* · 09-03-2008, 08:49 AM

one problem is people not taking into account the curvature of field.
if you take a test at 16mm at 2.8 of a flat object like some newspaper, the edges will not be great because the depth of field is not actually a flat plane. of course this field curvature is not a good thing, but it is common in many lenses

whitedogone · 09-03-2008, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by soccerjoe5

you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen

A noobie asks.......How do you do that?