Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2010, 03:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
ManhattanProject's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
I have posted most of this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here;

I would not be at all scared of buying a new 16-50 today. They have apparently figured out what the problem was/is and how to fix it. I would be a little skittish about buying an older, out-of-warranty used one, though. The 16-50 is a blessing to Pentaxians. 98% of those who have had both know how much better it is than the kit lens (any version). The new PopPhoto that arrived yesterday agrees. This months lens guide is for wide-to-tele zoom lenses. The 16-50 received 4.5 out of 5 stars, tied for the highest on the list with the Nikon 17-55 2.8 ED, which, in reality, costs nearly twice as much. They called it "pro-level" and put a "best in class" label on its picture. The 18-55 AL II received 3 stars.

BTW, I am one of those who has never had any problems at all with any of my 3 DA* lenses, knock on wood (like Michael Scott once said, "I am not superstitious, I'm just a little stitious").
Yea, I've read this. And I want to believe it, but I'm just a little hesitant. Love my 50-135, though. :ugh:

07-14-2010, 03:23 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Are you a Pentax "insider?" You seem to have some kind of inside knowledge about them knowing about the problem and fixing it. Also you are using some statistics that I have not seem proven anywhere. In fact there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show the opposite is true.

The problem with all lens reviews is that they get a lens and use it for a short time. SDM failure is a gift that usually comes with time....
No, this is BS. It's common knowledge that the problem existed mainly among early production units. It's just that now when one occasionally breaks, and that's going to happen with any lens, those people have to share it with everyone because of the pre-existing issue. If mine were stolen or destroyed I would buy a new one tomorrow. If my SDM went out, I'd get it fixed. Let's see your statistics showing the problem still exists to the same extent that it once did.

Man, talk about being determined to find a negative. I quit hanging out at the "other" forum because of all the "negative nellies". I'm glad there are still fewer of you over here.

Last edited by DogLover; 07-14-2010 at 03:27 PM. Reason: improper quote attribution
07-14-2010, 04:54 PM   #18
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
No, this is BS. It's common knowledge that the problem existed mainly among early production units. It's just that now when one occasionally breaks, and that's going to happen with any lens, those people have to share it with everyone because of the pre-existing issue. If mine were stolen or destroyed I would buy a new one tomorrow. If my SDM went out, I'd get it fixed. Let's see your statistics showing the problem still exists to the same extent that it once did.

Man, talk about being determined to find a negative. I quit hanging out at the "other" forum because of all the "negative nellies". I'm glad there are still fewer of you over here.
Wow, such a strong reaction and judgement from a new poster who probably knows nothing about me. I am not here to pump sunshine, or make you feel good about your purchase. I am just a camera enthusiast sharing my experiences and opinons. And my humble opinion is that you are wrong about the "common knowledge" that the problem existed among early production units and it is fixed. Evidence I read suggests that this may not be the case, so I am not so trusting as to believe it and spend the kind of money a DA* costs. Warranty or not...
07-14-2010, 05:15 PM   #19
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
I went with the DA17-70. The performance is very similar to the DA*16-50 at the same aperture and FL, and you get a bit more at the longer end. If you need the weather sealing and F2.8, go with the DA*, but if not, the DA17-70 is a very worthy upgrade to the kit.

07-14-2010, 05:17 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Wow, such a strong reaction and judgement from a new poster who probably knows nothing about me. I am not here to pump sunshine, or make you feel good about your purchase. I am just a camera enthusiast sharing my experiences and opinons. And my humble opinion is that you are wrong about the "common knowledge" that the problem existed among early production units and it is fixed. Evidence I read suggests that this may not be the case, so I am not so trusting as to believe it and spend the kind of money a DA* costs. Warranty or not...
.....and that is a much more tactful way to state your opinion. I still think you're wrong, but that's fine. It just seemed to me that you had a personal agenda to steer people away from one of the finest zooms ever to be available to Pentaxians. No hard feelings. We can still be friends.
07-14-2010, 05:44 PM - 1 Like   #21
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
The DA * 16-50 has had a cloud over it since its inception -- decentering issues and SDM problems. What Pentax needs to do is release version II of the lens -- basically the same with some cosmetic differences, just so people know the bugs are finally worked out. I do think there has been improvement in the SDM motors recently -- I can see it in my repaired lens. Seem stronger and more certain, but what do I know?
07-14-2010, 05:56 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The DA * 16-50 has had a cloud over it since its inception -- decentering issues and SDM problems. What Pentax needs to do is release version II of the lens -- basically the same with some cosmetic differences, just so people know the bugs are finally worked out. I do think there has been improvement in the SDM motors recently -- I can see it in my repaired lens. Seem stronger and more certain, but what do I know?
A capital idea, Rondec!
07-14-2010, 06:23 PM   #23
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,281
To the OP: upgrade if you have the funds and need what that lens has over the kit lens (mainly the 2.8 constant aperture and bone-shaking center sharpness)! I know I needed this, and so I went with a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 because it's half the price and I rarely shoot in the rain (though the lack of 'weather sealing' wouldn't stop me).

My DA*50-135 is now 3 years old and still working like a champ... with an original production run SDM motor. Maybe because I don't worry about it?

07-14-2010, 07:39 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Fl_Gulfer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida Gulf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,033
Another vote for the TAMRON SP 17-50/2.8 Di II
07-14-2010, 09:17 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 479
For what it's worth the DA* 16-50 is the reason I changed to DA Limited primes for the wide to normal range. I was just never satisfied with the results I got with it. Not to mention it's bulk.
07-14-2010, 11:05 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,930
QuoteOriginally posted by noahpurdy Quote
For what it's worth the DA* 16-50 is the reason I changed to DA Limited primes for the wide to normal range. I was just never satisfied with the results I got with it. Not to mention it's bulk.
Hauling around 3 primes to get one 16-50mm is less bulk?
07-14-2010, 11:22 PM   #27
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 21
I own a DA* 16-50 since august 2008, and although I did have to repair it once, I absolutely love the lens. It is my most used piece of kit. Yes, it has some corner softness at 2.8, but this is irrelevant IMHO - the final point being that I am satisfied with the images I get.

I also have a 18-55 - which I NEVER use.
07-15-2010, 10:07 AM   #28
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Hauling around 3 primes to get one 16-50mm is less bulk?
Actually, it is less bulk and weight. Moreover, the weight doesn't stay on the camera all the time and the bulk can be more easily distributed.

I've gone the same way for the same reason. Four little primes is actually no more bulk and weight than my DA17-70, and the DA*16-50 is bigger and about 50% heavier than the DA17-70.
07-15-2010, 10:27 AM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,930
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Actually, it is less bulk and weight. Moreover, the weight doesn't stay on the camera all the time and the bulk can be more easily distributed.

I've gone the same way for the same reason. Four little primes is actually no more bulk and weight than my DA17-70, and the DA*16-50 is bigger and about 50% heavier than the DA17-70.
50% heavier still makes it a light weight lens!
07-15-2010, 11:18 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
ManhattanProject: My hangup over the Tamron or Sigma is weather sealing, I'm an outdoors photographer, and that's pretty important to me. It's really why I got the K-7 itself.

Yes, I wanted the weather sealing too--I hike all 4 months of the year, in northern New England. I found the best WR is common sense. I have the Tamron above tree-line, in well below zero temperatures, in January, in the Presidential range of White Mts--No problems at all. The lens is remarkable in all ways, it is better than the Da wide open, sharper to the corners, less distortion @ the wide end, better Ca control and matches the Da elsewhere. What I like most about the Da, like other Pentax lenses, is the multi coating-- +1 there Pentax!

I put all the facts on the table, weighed them, and realized the Tamron was my best choice--by far. That does not mean I thought the Da 16-50 a bad choice--it too is a great lens. I do have a 18-55 WR Pentax, but it does not make it into my bag since I compared shots of it up against the Tamron.

If you opt to go with the Da 16-50, it surely will be an upgrade over the 18-55--best of luck to you.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
copy, da*, da* 16-50mm, k-mount, kit, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sears 1:1.7 50mm - no MC on lens - is it worth$15 Honoria Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 03-10-2014 12:19 PM
The K 55mm 1:1.8 - worth having with the M 50mm 1:1.7? Jonathan Mac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 06-01-2010 10:30 AM
Is the A 50mm 1.4 worth keeping? Mickgriddle Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 04-08-2010 04:42 AM
is it worth to pay US$ 200 for 50mm f 1.2 fearview Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 06-08-2008 06:45 PM
Pentax DA*16-50mm Lens Worth It? squarerigger Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-19-2007 11:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top