Deciding whether the DA* 16-50mm is worth it.

nulla · 07-15-2010, 12:31 PM

Go for the DA*16-50

it is a wonderful lens... I like you tend to shoot wider and its my most used zoom.

cheers

Neil

**Ash** · 07-15-2010, 01:01 PM

It's a unique lens, ticking all the boxes for a top lens of its caliber.
Whether you regard the SDM as a tick or a cross is a personal matter, but just know that the AF is no faster, sometimes a little more finicky, than that of screwdrive lenses.

GeneV · 07-15-2010, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by tuco

50% heavier still makes it a light weight lens!

Compared to the 67, for sure!

I just finished a few weeks of vacation with the K-x and four DA ltd primes. Most of the time, it was definitely easier carrying than the DA17-70, and you can't beat that prime quality. The extra lenses can go in a waist pack or even a pocket.

tuco · 07-15-2010, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Compared to the 67, for sure!

I just finished a few weeks of vacation with the K-x and four DA ltd primes. Most of the time, it was definitely easier carrying than the DA17-70, and you can't beat that prime quality. The extra lenses can go in a waist pack or even a pocket.

Yes, its all relative. But still, compared to what lenses are carried in my K-7 bag, my DA* 16-50mm is one of the lightest and it is a zoom. Zeiss 85mm ƒ1.4, FA-100mm ƒ2.8 macro and A* 300mm ƒ4

Caat · 07-15-2010, 02:01 PM

I really like my DA* 16-50 - it's most recent outing was my brother's wedding.

It's just a very solid lens - both in build and performance. Versus the kit-lens:

- ves

More chromatic abberation in general
Enormous
Built in flash vignettes at certain focal lengths with the hood on.

+ ves

Almost everything else - its sharper, more contrasty, silent AF, weathersealed

For me the weathe-sealing has been the biggest surprise. Surprising in that it's been more useful than I thought. These two shots would not have been possible without it:

Rain and spray off the sea:

Sand and dust: (although front element protected by filter)

Whether it's worth upgrading from the kit lens really depends upon what you want out of your images. If you want some of the highest image quality and are prepared to pay the premium it's worth it - as you already have the 50-135mm the 16-50 would be an excellent companion.

builttospill · 07-15-2010, 02:05 PM

Most of my lenses are primes. I did want zooms to cover the same lengths though, so I bought a DA 17-70 to go with my 70-300. I loved the 17-70 but a few months after my purchase the SDM went out. After owning the 18-55, 17-70, 16-50 and 16-45, I kept the 16-45.

Hands down the best IQ of the four lenses* was the 16-50. I just didn't want SDM problems again. If you're not too concerned about that, buy it and an extended warranty.

* based on my own tests the 16-50 ranked #1 by far on IQ, 17-70 second and 16-45 third. I won't even place the 18-55 because it's not worth it.

ManhattanProject · 07-15-2010, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

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.

Hey, I appreciate the honest comparison, thanks. Very insightful.

Originally posted by Caat

I really like my DA* 16-50 - it's most recent outing was my brother's wedding.

It's just a very solid lens - both in build and performance. Versus the kit-lens:

- ves

More chromatic abberation in general
Enormous
Built in flash vignettes at certain focal lengths with the hood on.

+ ves

Almost everything else - its sharper, more contrasty, silent AF, weathersealed

For me the weathe-sealing has been the biggest surprise. Surprising in that it's been more useful than I thought. These two shots would not have been possible without it:

Rain and spray off the sea:

Sand and dust: (although front element protected by filter)

Whether it's worth upgrading from the kit lens really depends upon what you want out of your images. If you want some of the highest image quality and are prepared to pay the premium it's worth it - as you already have the 50-135mm the 16-50 would be an excellent companion.

Those are some great shots, especially #2. Thanks for the input!

Originally posted by builttospill

Most of my lenses are primes. I did want zooms to cover the same lengths though, so I bought a DA 17-70 to go with my 70-300. I loved the 17-70 but a few months after my purchase the SDM went out. After owning the 18-55, 17-70, 16-50 and 16-45, I kept the 16-45.

Hands down the best IQ of the four lenses* was the 16-50. I just didn't want SDM problems again. If you're not too concerned about that, buy it and an extended warranty.

* based on my own tests the 16-50 ranked #1 by far on IQ, 17-70 second and 16-45 third. I won't even place the 18-55 because it's not worth it.

That might end up being my position, getting the 16-50 and a good warranty.

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

07-15-2010, 12:31 PM	#31
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Go for the DA*16-50 it is a wonderful lens... I like you tend to shoot wider and its my most used zoom. cheers Neil

07-15-2010, 01:01 PM	#32
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	It's a unique lens, ticking all the boxes for a top lens of its caliber. Whether you regard the SDM as a tick or a cross is a personal matter, but just know that the AF is no faster, sometimes a little more finicky, than that of screwdrive lenses.

07-15-2010, 01:09 PM	#33
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by tuco 50% heavier still makes it a light weight lens! Compared to the 67, for sure! I just finished a few weeks of vacation with the K-x and four DA ltd primes. Most of the time, it was definitely easier carrying than the DA17-70, and you can't beat that prime quality. The extra lenses can go in a waist pack or even a pocket.

07-15-2010, 01:43 PM	#34
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by GeneV Compared to the 67, for sure! I just finished a few weeks of vacation with the K-x and four DA ltd primes. Most of the time, it was definitely easier carrying than the DA17-70, and you can't beat that prime quality. The extra lenses can go in a waist pack or even a pocket. Yes, its all relative. But still, compared to what lenses are carried in my K-7 bag, my DA* 16-50mm is one of the lightest and it is a zoom. Zeiss 85mm ƒ1.4, FA-100mm ƒ2.8 macro and A* 300mm ƒ4

07-15-2010, 02:01 PM	#35
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	I really like my DA* 16-50 - it's most recent outing was my brother's wedding. It's just a very solid lens - both in build and performance. Versus the kit-lens: - ves More chromatic abberation in general Enormous Built in flash vignettes at certain focal lengths with the hood on. + ves Almost everything else - its sharper, more contrasty, silent AF, weathersealed For me the weathe-sealing has been the biggest surprise. Surprising in that it's been more useful than I thought. These two shots would not have been possible without it: Rain and spray off the sea: Sand and dust: (although front element protected by filter) Whether it's worth upgrading from the kit lens really depends upon what you want out of your images. If you want some of the highest image quality and are prepared to pay the premium it's worth it - as you already have the 50-135mm the 16-50 would be an excellent companion.

07-15-2010, 02:05 PM	#36
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Most of my lenses are primes. I did want zooms to cover the same lengths though, so I bought a DA 17-70 to go with my 70-300. I loved the 17-70 but a few months after my purchase the SDM went out. After owning the 18-55, 17-70, 16-50 and 16-45, I kept the 16-45. Hands down the best IQ of the four lenses* was the 16-50. I just didn't want SDM problems again. If you're not too concerned about that, buy it and an extended warranty. * based on my own tests the 16-50 ranked #1 by far on IQ, 17-70 second and 16-45 third. I won't even place the 18-55 because it's not worth it.

07-15-2010, 03:06 PM	#37
ManhattanProject Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 221 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jewelltrail 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. Hey, I appreciate the honest comparison, thanks. Very insightful. Originally posted by Caat I really like my DA* 16-50 - it's most recent outing was my brother's wedding. It's just a very solid lens - both in build and performance. Versus the kit-lens: - ves More chromatic abberation in general Enormous Built in flash vignettes at certain focal lengths with the hood on. + ves Almost everything else - its sharper, more contrasty, silent AF, weathersealed For me the weathe-sealing has been the biggest surprise. Surprising in that it's been more useful than I thought. These two shots would not have been possible without it: Rain and spray off the sea: Sand and dust: (although front element protected by filter) Whether it's worth upgrading from the kit lens really depends upon what you want out of your images. If you want some of the highest image quality and are prepared to pay the premium it's worth it - as you already have the 50-135mm the 16-50 would be an excellent companion. Those are some great shots, especially #2. Thanks for the input! Originally posted by builttospill Most of my lenses are primes. I did want zooms to cover the same lengths though, so I bought a DA 17-70 to go with my 70-300. I loved the 17-70 but a few months after my purchase the SDM went out. After owning the 18-55, 17-70, 16-50 and 16-45, I kept the 16-45. Hands down the best IQ of the four lenses* was the 16-50. I just didn't want SDM problems again. If you're not too concerned about that, buy it and an extended warranty. * based on my own tests the 16-50 ranked #1 by far on IQ, 17-70 second and 16-45 third. I won't even place the 18-55 because it's not worth it. That might end up being my position, getting the 16-50 and a good warranty.