Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2010, 12:31 PM   #31
Veteran Member
nulla's Avatar

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
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,696
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
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,140
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
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
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 897
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
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,679
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
Senior Member
ManhattanProject's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
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.


QuoteOriginally posted by Caat Quote
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!



QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
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.
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 07:25 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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