[Ash]

Thank you for you wonderful free trolling social service.

Truth is things do break down from time to time. According to lensrentals the typical chance of failure is 5,5% per year. So far no hard evidence was presented that this chance would be higher with Pentax. But after long years of completely problem free and 100% dependable screw drive even slightest drop caused panic.

Sir, I think the name-calling has gone far enough now. Alan's been around for a while and has been pretty frank about things, which is what forums like this are all about. And your opinion is good too, just consider other ideas contrary to yours as just differences rather than trolling.

Thanks.

[Bramela]

+1 Ash.
All people's opinions are valuable. Just long as they are said with the correct amount of tolerance of others.

It is a real shame that lately, many threads have been ruined by hard line attitudes and unbending points of view.

We are all here to help each other, lets just keep it cordial and friendly, understanding that ones experiences may be different to others.
Nothing is written in stone, when it comes camera gear etc.

[GeneV]

It is always odd and a bit sad how heated everyone gets about a subject that is simply opinion and preference. Whether a DSLR setup is really worth many times more than a point and shoot is a matter of personal preference.

The kit lens is ridiculously cheap for what it does. The DA* is quite pricey. On the face of it, nothing is really worth 10x the price of something that works pretty darn well at doing almost the same thing. But that is not the way things work in the world of discretionary purchases. An audio component or even a car that is 10x the price of another is often not easily argued to be objectively 10x better on specifications, but small changes come dear at some point, and whether those changes are worth it is a personal preference.

[noahpurdy]

Going on two years now and none of my SDM lenses have needed repairs.

[Metalwizards]

This Tamron 17-50mm seems to be out of production. Yet another Tamron lens that has been hyped up here that you can no longer buy new... WHY!?

[wlachan]

It is still available from B&H so I assume it's still being made? This is one of the few Tamron that is truly great optically. However, watch out for BF/FF & misalignment. Test it hard within the exchange period.

[jatrax]

Well, I really wanted to ask the question without stirring up the SDM issues. Not because I think the issue is unfounded but because it has been covered extensively already. I think it would be difficult to belong to this forum and have any interest in lenses and NOT be aware that a good number of people feel the DA*16-50 has issues. But I see I failed miserably at that.

So for stirring that up again I sincerely apologize.

What I want to know is: is the DA*16-50 worth 10x the money of the kit lens? Or 5x or whatever? Assuming I am willing to accept it might fail at some point?

I have considered both the Sigma and Tamron 2.8 offerings and most reviews consider them good. But I do live in the Pacific Northwest and it rains here occasionally so WR is a factor. I covered a dog sled race several weeks ago and had snow melting on camera & lens all day.

I have three family weddings coming up this year and feel I need a faster lens to cover them. I won't be the primary at any of them but I still want to do it right.

[dgaies]

What I want to know is: is the DA*16-50 worth 10x the money of the kit lens? Or 5x or whatever? Assuming I am willing to accept it might fail at some point?

Not trying to avoid your question, but it's impossible to quantify how much more the 16-50 is worth than the kit lens. If you need the extra speed of the 16-50, then one could argue it's worth infinitely more because the 18-55 won't get the job done. For certain applications where you can stop the lens down the difference might be more subtle between the two lenses. There might even be times you'd prefer the 18-55 because it's a lot lighter and smaller than the 16-50. The bottom line is the IQ of the 16-50 is better than the 18-55, but by what margin is pretty much dependent on the situation and your own personal needs.

[Ex Finn.]

The extra 2mm on the wide end and weather sealing make it worth it to me.

[JeffJS]

What I want to know is: is the DA*16-50 worth 10x the money of the kit lens? Or 5x or whatever? Assuming I am willing to accept it might fail at some point?

I have considered both the Sigma and Tamron 2.8 offerings and most reviews consider them good. But I do live in the Pacific Northwest and it rains here occasionally so WR is a factor. I covered a dog sled race several weeks ago and had snow melting on camera & lens all day.

I have three family weddings coming up this year and feel I need a faster lens to cover them. I won't be the primary at any of them but I still want to do it right.

Then I think you've answered your own question. You want the speed AND WR is a significant factor for you. At that point, price X vs price Y is irrelevant. Painful at first? Probably. The question Really becomes, Can you afford it? If so, go for it. Check your copy, exchange it if need be. If SDM concerns you, get a warranty. Enjoy the lens, shoot your weddings and dog sled races and move on.

[Rondec]

Sir, I think the name-calling has gone far enough now. Alan's been around for a while and has been pretty frank about things, which is what forums like this are all about. And your opinion is good too, just consider other ideas contrary to yours as just differences rather than trolling.

Thanks.

People definitely get awfully heated about camera gear.


The thing I wish is that people could mention the SDM issues and then talk seriously about the merits or lack thereof, of the lens itself. However, any time a lens with SDM is mentioned, the optics are brushed over to talk about these problematic motors. I think it bears mentioning the other aspects of the lens as well.

[twitch]

I tried 2 copies of the 16-50 on my K-x, both had significant back focusing problems. In the end I gave up and swapped it for a 12-24 instead.

I would recommend then that anyone with a body that lacks lens AF fine tuning to avoid this lens, or at least be prepared to possibly send the lens and body off to Pentax to have them adjusted.

[elho_cid]

Sir, I think the name-calling has gone far enough now. Alan's been around for a while and has been pretty frank about things, which is what forums like this are all about. And your opinion is good too, just consider other ideas contrary to yours as just differences rather than trolling.

Thanks.

It is not the idea. Actually I consider SDM failure a certainity as well. I do not believe it will last 20 years as some my screw drive lenses did.
It is the way the idea is presented.

And you are right that I should be more polite presenting my opinions.

[selar]

Yes, it is worth ten times the money and the one year of running around getting a copy that was good. But I dont want to go through that again!

[Metalwizards]

I tried 2 copies of the 16-50 on my K-x, both had significant back focusing problems. In the end I gave up and swapped it for a 12-24 instead.

I would recommend then that anyone with a body that lacks lens AF fine tuning to avoid this lens, or at least be prepared to possibly send the lens and body off to Pentax to have them adjusted.

Out of curiosity what bodies do not have fine tuning?