DA* 16-50mm F2.8, show us what it can do.

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-15-2010, 11:26 AM

Russ, that is a great shot!

-Mous- · 12-16-2010, 05:18 AM

Here are a few pics from my vacation to Italy

**Rondec** · 12-16-2010, 05:28 AM

It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA *16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses?

-Mous- · 12-16-2010, 10:40 AM

Well of all my photo's in Italy, 50% was shot with the 16-50mm, 40% with the 50-135mm and 10% with the 55mm. So I find them both very useful. The 16-50mm is very close to the kit lens, so I think that accounts for it's popularity. The criticism is caused by the many bad copies of this lens, but if your copy is good, I can understand why many people would find it more useful than the longer 50-135mm.

Jewelltrail · 12-16-2010, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Rondec: It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA *16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses?

Focal ranges near 16-50 are more useful, for more shooters.

**RichardS** · 12-17-2010, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA *16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses?

I think that the higher volume in the 16-50 thread might be because of the negative stuff that's been around and that people like me who think it's a great lens are trying to counteract the negative stuff. There's no question that the 50-135 is one of the great lenses, and maybe people don't feel compelled as much to show it off.

That said ... I think my 50-135 has a few advantages (apart from the usual):

the filter size is smaller, so they don't cost as much,
it's bigger, so you get more chicks (size matters),
the fact that it doesn't get longer when you zoom is pretty cool (no comment on size here, please),
it has more of a 'wow' factor at family gatherings (getting chicks again),
OK, it has something that I can't define that makes it a great lens.

Richard.

kxr4trids · 12-17-2010, 08:47 AM

It could also be that the first instinct (or instruction, if taking advice) for the novice photographer is to upgrade the kit lens.

Maybe it's just my personal aesthetic, but a majority of the images in the 50-135 thread are visually appealing (the "oooh" factor), whereas only a couple in this thread approach the same quality.

I wouldn't suggest it's a valid metric for evaluating lens quality (or at least not without 100% crops), and it probably has more to do with being difficult to interestingly frame wider shots.

Anyway, wasn't going to say anything, because I couldn't think of a way to say it that wouldn't sound rude, particularly since I don't post pictures myself (because I *know* I'm a lousy photographer) but since it was brought up, was wondering if I was the only one who felt this way.

kari · 12-17-2010, 11:06 AM - **2 Likes**

greymda · 12-17-2010, 11:08 AM

oh my...

johnmflores · 12-17-2010, 02:03 PM

That's a lot of penguins! Beautiful landscape too! Well done!

**Fries** · 12-17-2010, 03:24 PM

Kari, thats simply stunning! Thanks for showing this photo.

ddsg · 12-17-2010, 03:56 PM

That shot is nothing short of amazing. Wow...

dankoBanana · 12-17-2010, 04:53 PM

whats better than a good lens? good available subjects for shooting

as someone said, 90 % of good landscape shooting is just being "there"

johnmflores · 12-17-2010, 10:02 PM

Hard to follow such a great shot, but someone's got to try

kari · 12-17-2010, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by ddsg

That shot is nothing short of amazing. Wow...

Thank you. As Banana said, it's simply about being there. To be honest, I wasn't perfectly happy with this photo, probably had to do with the time of day (around 10 AM) that it was taken. The light was too harsh and the colours seemed a bit washed-out and the background a touch hazy. I tried to make it better in PP, but still not totally happy. Unfortunately I could only shoot on 6MP JPEG as I was running out of space fast.

12-17-2010, 12:18 AM	#246
RichardS Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Nelson Bay, NSW, Australia Posts: 2,418	Originally posted by Rondec It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA 16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses? I think that the higher volume in the 16-50 thread might be because of the negative stuff that's been around and that people like me who think it's a great lens are trying to counteract the negative stuff. There's no question that the 50-135 is one of the* great lenses, and maybe people don't feel compelled as much to show it off. That said ... I think my 50-135 has a few advantages (apart from the usual): the filter size is smaller, so they don't cost as much, it's bigger, so you get more chicks (size matters), the fact that it doesn't get longer when you zoom is pretty cool (no comment on size here, please), it has more of a 'wow' factor at family gatherings (getting chicks again), OK, it has something that I can't define that makes it a great lens. Richard.

12-17-2010, 11:06 AM - 2 Likes	#248
kari Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 142	Last edited by kari; 08-23-2011 at 04:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax and Samsung a "no show" at the photo show	Nightman	Pentax News and Rumors	16	08-15-2010 07:32 PM
I'll show you mine, if you show me yours!	sawtooth235	Post Your Photos!	18	05-08-2009 07:33 AM
Air show or should I say Tank Show	jbrowning	Post Your Photos!	4	10-05-2008 09:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: F 24-50mm 4, A 24-50mm 4, M 35mm 2, M 50mm 1.4, A 35-105mm 3.5, A 70-210mm 4	raybird	Sold Items	7	08-29-2008 01:06 PM
Car Show "abstracts" Greenwich Show	mutley	Post Your Photos!	16	06-22-2007 10:59 AM

12-15-2010, 11:26 AM	#241
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Russ, that is a great shot!

12-16-2010, 05:18 AM	#242
-Mous- Site Supporter Join Date: May 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 62	Here are a few pics from my vacation to Italy

12-16-2010, 05:28 AM	#243
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA *16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses?

12-16-2010, 10:40 AM	#244
-Mous- Site Supporter Join Date: May 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 62	Well of all my photo's in Italy, 50% was shot with the 16-50mm, 40% with the 50-135mm and 10% with the 55mm. So I find them both very useful. The 16-50mm is very close to the kit lens, so I think that accounts for it's popularity. The criticism is caused by the many bad copies of this lens, but if your copy is good, I can understand why many people would find it more useful than the longer 50-135mm.

12-16-2010, 10:41 PM	#245
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Rondec: It is quite odd to me that John Flores started two threads at the same time, one for the 16-50 and the other for the 50-135. The 50-135 is a universally accoladed lens, while the 16-50 tends to receive a lot more criticism, yet the DA *16-50 thread is three times longer. What does this say about the comparative usefulness of these two lenses? Focal ranges near 16-50 are more useful, for more shooters.

12-17-2010, 08:47 AM	#247
kxr4trids Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: VA Photos: Albums Posts: 227	It could also be that the first instinct (or instruction, if taking advice) for the novice photographer is to upgrade the kit lens. Maybe it's just my personal aesthetic, but a majority of the images in the 50-135 thread are visually appealing (the "oooh" factor), whereas only a couple in this thread approach the same quality. I wouldn't suggest it's a valid metric for evaluating lens quality (or at least not without 100% crops), and it probably has more to do with being difficult to interestingly frame wider shots. Anyway, wasn't going to say anything, because I couldn't think of a way to say it that wouldn't sound rude, particularly since I don't post pictures myself (because I know I'm a lousy photographer) but since it was brought up, was wondering if I was the only one who felt this way.

12-17-2010, 11:08 AM	#249
greymda Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moldova, EU Posts: 150	oh my...

12-17-2010, 02:03 PM	#250
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	That's a lot of penguins! Beautiful landscape too! Well done!

12-17-2010, 03:24 PM	#251
Fries Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gauw Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,582	Kari, thats simply stunning! Thanks for showing this photo.

12-17-2010, 03:56 PM	#252
ddsg Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Montreal Posts: 44	That shot is nothing short of amazing. Wow...

12-17-2010, 04:53 PM	#253
dankoBanana Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 533	whats better than a good lens? good available subjects for shooting as someone said, 90 % of good landscape shooting is just being "there"

12-17-2010, 10:02 PM	#254
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Hard to follow such a great shot, but someone's got to try

12-17-2010, 11:27 PM	#255
kari Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 142	Originally posted by ddsg That shot is nothing short of amazing. Wow... Thank you. As Banana said, it's simply about being there. To be honest, I wasn't perfectly happy with this photo, probably had to do with the time of day (around 10 AM) that it was taken. The light was too harsh and the colours seemed a bit washed-out and the background a touch hazy. I tried to make it better in PP, but still not totally happy. Unfortunately I could only shoot on 6MP JPEG as I was running out of space fast.