[JeffJS]

Out of curiosity what bodies do not have fine tuning?

The easier question to answer is which ones Do. To My Knowledge.. The K20d, the K7, and the K5 have fine tuning for up to 20 lenses. Here's the dirty little secret about it. The cameras behave differently in different kinds of light. Well documented with the K5. Even then, many times, the adjustments allowed, aren't enough.

[Ex Finn.]

The cameras behave differently in different kinds of light.

The K7 is pretty stable and predictable. No focus problems with 10-17, 12-24, 16-50, 18-55, 60-250 or 55-300.
Or maybe my eyes suck and I don`t know it.

[mlatour]

Out of curiosity what bodies do not have fine tuning?

The K-x doesn't offer fine tuning in it's 'consumer' accessible menus,
but there's a rather easy was to access that function in the technician's 'debug menu'.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-technical-troubleshooting/130514-...cs-please.html

Except that adjustment affects all lenses used, and not 'fine-tuning' the camera only for a particular lens that's problematic.

Michel

[JeffJS]

The K7 is pretty stable and predictable. No focus problems with 10-17, 12-24, 16-50, 18-55, 60-250 or 55-300.
Or maybe my eyes suck and I don`t know it.

With all 3 of the cameras mentioned (now that we've again, gone off topic) I never bothered with the AF adjustments. 99% of the focusing errors I've had, I can chalk up to user problems (such as shaking the camera too much). When taking pictures of silly charts and the like, setting until it was "correct", never worked very well for me either.. Exactly How a lens, especially one that moves it's rear elements, can either FF or BF, is still beyond me. Instead of worrying about it, I just tend to take photos. Yes, the K7 is a fine camera as are the rest of them. But then again, my eyes Do suck and I know it

[twitch]

The K-x doesn't offer fine tuning in it's 'consumer' accessible menus,
but there's a rather easy was to access that function in the technician's 'debug menu'.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-technical-troubleshooting/130514-...cs-please.html

Except that adjustment affects all lenses used, and not 'fine-tuning' the camera only for a particular lens that's problematic.

Michel

True, but let's call that "blunt" AF tuning. The K-r has it too.

[Ex Finn.]

My eyesight actually does suck.
Back on topic. The 16-50 is a good lens, it is a good match on one of the sealed bodies.
(K7 in my case). The camera-lens-grip combination just feels right with good balance.

[twitch]

With all 3 of the cameras mentioned (now that we've again, gone off topic) I never bothered with the AF adjustments. 99% of the focusing errors I've had, I can chalk up to user problems (such as shaking the camera too much). When taking pictures of silly charts and the like, setting until it was "correct", never worked very well for me either.. Exactly How a lens, especially one that moves it's rear elements, can either FF or BF, is still beyond me. Instead of worrying about it, I just tend to take photos. Yes, the K7 is a fine camera as are the rest of them. But then again, my eyes Do suck and I know it

Believe me, when you get a f/2.8 or faster lens with focus problems it shows up in every day photos. The 16-50 was the first one I ever had with such a problem that the focus point was completely outside of the DOF.

[Tremaine]

I love the DA* 16-50mm

[JeffJS]

Believe me, when you get a f/2.8 or faster lens with focus problems it shows up in every day photos. The 16-50 was the first one I ever had with such a problem that the focus point was completely outside of the DOF.

Sorry to disappoint everyone but my experience with the DA*16-50 has not been the same miserable journey as theirs.

[GlennG]

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.

+1 on the above, for sure. Also know that the law of diminishing returns is very much in effect for photo gear.

[PentaxPoke]

I
So I do not say you couldn't get to experience the Tamron better than DA*, but it is definately not the rule.

My testing disagrees with your opinion. So does that of the Photozone tests. The DA* 16-50 lens has very poor edge sharpness. Especially wide open. That might be fine for portraits where the softness is hidden in the bokeh, but that is it.

[elho_cid]

My testing disagrees with your opinion. So does that of the Photozone tests. The DA* 16-50 lens has very poor edge sharpness. Especially wide open. That might be fine for portraits where the softness is hidden in the bokeh, but that is it.

And mine with yours. None of these (Da* or Tammy) I tried was as sharp in the corners as let's say FA35 or DA14, but both were fine and da* seemed better in this respect.
But both these lenses do have variations. Ultra wide to normal zoom is perhaps the most challenging lens design. There are about 18 elements in each of them to align correctly. I guess it is difficult to get them right and to ensure they do stay in their exact position during usage and abuse.
And now to the point - let's say I'm in a camera shop and there are DA* and Tamron in front of me, both good copies and fine optically. I'm going to pay the extra for the build quality - and accept the fact that in-lens motors will eventually fail after few years.

[johnyeros]

It's like comparing a 8000 dollar kia to an 80,000 dollar porsches.. they both get you from point A to point B...but.. you see where i'm going with this

[PentaxScott]

Nothing in the history of Pentax, starts such a heated debate faster than mentioning the phrases 'DA*', 'SDM' and '16-50' in the same sentence. In a way, its almost sad.

I own the 16-50. I recently did a little non-professional but controlled comparison using this lens, the kit lens, and the FA 50mm all shot at 50mm. The 16-50 is sharper, has better color, has better contrast and all around is a significant bit better than the kit lens. 10x better? No. I would say 10-20% better in each area. While that doesnt sound like much, when youre looking at 10-20% better contrast, detail, sharpness, etc...it adds up quick. Having the ability to shoot that 50mm at an aperture below f/5.6 is CRITICAL for portraits (weddings) and the such. Add weather sealing, quick shift, and silent focusing and the 16-50 was definitely worth the upgrade cost over the kit lens. However, I bought mine before the pricing adjustment so I paid $629 for mine.

My coworker, and Pentax shooting buddy has the Tamron 17-50. We often compare and contrast our images when we go out and shoot together. The results are MUCH closer between the Pentax 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50 than the 16-50 and the kit lens. I prefer the color and contrast of the over the Tamron but the differences are VERY small, and generally only noticeable to a seasoned photographer. The pentax offers a wider FoV, weather sealing, quick shift, and quiet focusing, but has a bit more distortion at 16mm, slightly softer corners and edges and is much more expensive. The Tamron lacks the extra amenities that dont affect image quality, but provides a more even image from corner to corner and is a very competitive alternative at a much smaller price.

[Ubuntu_user]

Nothing in the history of Pentax, starts such a heated debate faster than mentioning the phrases 'DA*', 'SDM' and '16-50' in the same sentence. In a way, its almost sad.

I own the 16-50. I recently did a little non-professional but controlled comparison using this lens, the kit lens, and the FA 50mm all shot at 50mm. The 16-50 is sharper, has better color, has better contrast and all around is a significant bit better than the kit lens. 10x better? No. I would say 10-20% better in each area. While that doesnt sound like much, when youre looking at 10-20% better contrast, detail, sharpness, etc...it adds up quick. Having the ability to shoot that 50mm at an aperture below f/5.6 is CRITICAL for portraits (weddings) and the such. Add weather sealing, quick shift, and silent focusing and the 16-50 was definitely worth the upgrade cost over the kit lens. However, I bought mine before the pricing adjustment so I paid $629 for mine.

My coworker, and Pentax shooting buddy has the Tamron 17-50. We often compare and contrast our images when we go out and shoot together. The results are MUCH closer between the Pentax 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50 than the 16-50 and the kit lens. I prefer the color and contrast of the over the Tamron but the differences are VERY small, and generally only noticeable to a seasoned photographer. The pentax offers a wider FoV, weather sealing, quick shift, and quiet focusing, but has a bit more distortion at 16mm, slightly softer corners and edges and is much more expensive. The Tamron lacks the extra amenities that dont affect image quality, but provides a more even image from corner to corner and is a very competitive alternative at a much smaller price.

Thanks Scott for your profitable addition! We need more answers like this...