Is DA*16-50 worth the price over kit lens?

PentaxPoke · 02-23-2011, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by PentaxScott

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.

I did a similar test with 4 different lenses here and made a game of it. You have to guess which is which:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/49639-4x50-lens-game.html

(Note, I didn't include the DA* 16-50 because it would have been too easy to guess the lens. At f/4.5 the 16-50 would have still showed softness at the edges which would be detectable on the wall. Oh yeah, also I didn't have the 16-50 because if I recall, this was done one of the times where the lens was sent back due to either faulty SDM or lens decentering.)

**Rondec** · 02-23-2011, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

I did a similar test with 4 different lenses here and made a game of it. You have to guess which is which:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/49639-4x50-lens-game.html

(Note, I didn't include the DA* 16-50 because it would have been too easy to guess the lens. At f/4.5 the 16-50 would have still showed softness at the edges which would be detectable on the wall. Oh yeah, also I didn't have the 16-50 because if I recall, this was done one of the times where the lens was sent back due to either faulty SDM or lens decentering.)

I think decentering issues have definitely been cleared up, although certainly SDM remains a problem. I have a later copy (about two years old now) and it showed none of these issues and is quite sharp from about 18mm to 45mm.

For whatever reason, this lens showed an amazing amount of copy variation. Maybe it is just poor QC, but some of the lenses were abysmal, while others were really good. Several photogs reported going through two or three copies to find a "good" one.

**jatrax** · 02-23-2011, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by PentaxScott

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.

Thanks Scott, that is very good information.

GeneV · 02-24-2011, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

For whatever reason, this lens showed an amazing amount of copy variation. Maybe it is just poor QC, but some of the lenses were abysmal, while others were really good. Several photogs reported going through two or three copies to find a "good" one.

The sad thing about that is that for around $1,000, you expect that the QC people have culled out the lesser examples. This is a fine lens design, but the reputation has been damaged by these QC issues.

benjikan · 02-24-2011, 12:20 PM

In a word...NO, not when stopped down 1 to 1.5 stops. The 18-55 that came with my Kx is extremely capable. Another option which I also own is the Pentax DA 16-45 f/4.0 lens which is very good and out performs the Canon 17-40L lens. I also own the DA*16-50.

eddie1960 · 02-24-2011, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

In a word...NO, not when stopped down 1 to 1.5 stops. The 18-55 that came with my Kx is extremely capable. Another option which I also own is the Pentax DA 16-45 f/4.0 lens which is very good and out performs the Canon 17-40L lens. I also own the DA*16-50.

i thought Pentax france's service got to spend more time with the DA 16-50 than you did

GeneV · 02-26-2011, 05:27 PM

Of course there's a guy on Ebay right now that doesn't think the DA* is worth more than the kit lens. He's offering it at $49. (plus $700 shipping). I'd be tempted to drive to his house over in Texas and pick it up. I'd even trade in my kit lens.

GlennG · 02-26-2011, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Of course there's a guy on Ebay right now that doesn't think the DA* is worth more than the kit lens. He's offering it at $49. (plus $700 shipping). I'd be tempted to drive to his house over in Texas and pick it up. I'd even trade in my kit lens.

Is that serious!? I live in Texas, maybe I'M the one that should be driving! Glenn

GeneV · 02-26-2011, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by GlennG

Is that serious!? I live in Texas, maybe I'M the one that should be driving! Glenn

It would be funny to see what he would do.

dgaies · 02-26-2011, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by GlennG

Is that serious!? I live in Texas, maybe I'M the one that should be driving! Glenn

Originally posted by GeneV

It would be funny to see what he would do.

He'd ask for $750. He's just trying to reduce the amount of commission he has to pay to ebay since you don't have to pay a commission on the shipping fees, only the sale price of the item.

GeneV · 02-26-2011, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

He'd ask for $750. He's just trying to reduce the amount of commission he has to pay to ebay since you don't have to pay a commission on the shipping fees, only the sale price of the item.

And they aren't smart enough to deal with that? They need better lawyers. If I were running Ebay, I'd make them commit to sell at the price for pick-up.

dgaies · 02-26-2011, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

And they aren't smart enough to deal with that?

I guess not automatically. There's a "report item" button to report items like that, but it usually takes ebay a few days to deal with it. It seems like it should be fairly easy for them to flag items that having shipping charges in the $700 range

GeneV · 02-26-2011, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

I guess not automatically. There's a "report item" button to report items like that, but it usually takes ebay a few days to deal with it. It seems like it should be fairly easy for them to flag items that having shipping charges in the $700 range

Or any offer with shipping charges that are more than, say, 10x the cost of the item.

wlachan · 02-26-2011, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

He'd ask for $750. He's just trying to reduce the amount of commission he has to pay to ebay since you don't have to pay a commission on the shipping fees, only the sale price of the item.

Or the lens was a dog. When the buyer sought refund, the shipping would be nonrefundable.

dgaies · 02-26-2011, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Or any offer with shipping charges that are more than, say, 10x the cost of the item.

The only issue there is that occasionally something will sell for $0.99 with $12 shipping and it will be legit. But I understand what you're saying and I'm sure someone could come up with a formula to detect out of line shipping costs fairly easily.

Originally posted by wlachan

Or the lens was a dog. When the buyer sought refund, the shipping would be nonrefundable.

That was my first thought too, although ebay recently extended their buyer protection and you can now recover shipping fees as well as the sale price if you're sold a defective product.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What about the K-5 body makes it "worth" 2x the price of the K-r KIT?	brecklundin	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	144	10-19-2010 07:24 AM
Incorrect Kit Lens - Is it worth spending time in exchanging it?	epidaetia	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	23	08-18-2010 03:11 PM
Worth buying filter for kit lens?	Hightreason	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	07-19-2010 07:07 PM
K20d kit lens, worth it?	Mindflux	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	10-10-2008 10:45 AM
Price increase on kit lens	regken	Pentax News and Rumors	6	12-15-2007 07:50 PM

02-23-2011, 10:08 AM	#61
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by PentaxScott 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. I did a similar test with 4 different lenses here and made a game of it. You have to guess which is which: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/49639-4x50-lens-game.html (Note, I didn't include the DA* 16-50 because it would have been too easy to guess the lens. At f/4.5 the 16-50 would have still showed softness at the edges which would be detectable on the wall. Oh yeah, also I didn't have the 16-50 because if I recall, this was done one of the times where the lens was sent back due to either faulty SDM or lens decentering.)

02-23-2011, 06:48 PM	#62
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by PentaxPoke I did a similar test with 4 different lenses here and made a game of it. You have to guess which is which: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/49639-4x50-lens-game.html (Note, I didn't include the DA* 16-50 because it would have been too easy to guess the lens. At f/4.5 the 16-50 would have still showed softness at the edges which would be detectable on the wall. Oh yeah, also I didn't have the 16-50 because if I recall, this was done one of the times where the lens was sent back due to either faulty SDM or lens decentering.) I think decentering issues have definitely been cleared up, although certainly SDM remains a problem. I have a later copy (about two years old now) and it showed none of these issues and is quite sharp from about 18mm to 45mm. For whatever reason, this lens showed an amazing amount of copy variation. Maybe it is just poor QC, but some of the lenses were abysmal, while others were really good. Several photogs reported going through two or three copies to find a "good" one.

02-23-2011, 11:25 PM	#63
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991 Original Poster	Originally posted by PentaxScott 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. Thanks Scott, that is very good information.

02-24-2011, 09:10 AM	#64
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Rondec For whatever reason, this lens showed an amazing amount of copy variation. Maybe it is just poor QC, but some of the lenses were abysmal, while others were really good. Several photogs reported going through two or three copies to find a "good" one. The sad thing about that is that for around $1,000, you expect that the QC people have culled out the lesser examples. This is a fine lens design, but the reputation has been damaged by these QC issues.

02-24-2011, 12:20 PM	#65
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	In a word...NO, not when stopped down 1 to 1.5 stops. The 18-55 that came with my Kx is extremely capable. Another option which I also own is the Pentax DA 16-45 f/4.0 lens which is very good and out performs the Canon 17-40L lens. I also own the DA*16-50.

02-24-2011, 12:40 PM	#66
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by benjikan In a word...NO, not when stopped down 1 to 1.5 stops. The 18-55 that came with my Kx is extremely capable. Another option which I also own is the Pentax DA 16-45 f/4.0 lens which is very good and out performs the Canon 17-40L lens. I also own the DA*16-50. i thought Pentax france's service got to spend more time with the DA 16-50 than you did

02-26-2011, 05:27 PM	#67
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Of course there's a guy on Ebay right now that doesn't think the DA* is worth more than the kit lens. He's offering it at $49. (plus $700 shipping). I'd be tempted to drive to his house over in Texas and pick it up. I'd even trade in my kit lens.

02-26-2011, 06:09 PM	#68
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Originally posted by GeneV Of course there's a guy on Ebay right now that doesn't think the DA* is worth more than the kit lens. He's offering it at $49. (plus $700 shipping). I'd be tempted to drive to his house over in Texas and pick it up. I'd even trade in my kit lens. Is that serious!? I live in Texas, maybe I'M the one that should be driving! Glenn

02-26-2011, 06:10 PM	#69
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by GlennG Is that serious!? I live in Texas, maybe I'M the one that should be driving! Glenn It would be funny to see what he would do.

02-26-2011, 06:32 PM	#70
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GlennG Is that serious!? I live in Texas, maybe I'M the one that should be driving! Glenn Originally posted by GeneV It would be funny to see what he would do. He'd ask for $750. He's just trying to reduce the amount of commission he has to pay to ebay since you don't have to pay a commission on the shipping fees, only the sale price of the item.

02-26-2011, 06:33 PM	#71
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by dgaies He'd ask for $750. He's just trying to reduce the amount of commission he has to pay to ebay since you don't have to pay a commission on the shipping fees, only the sale price of the item. And they aren't smart enough to deal with that? They need better lawyers. If I were running Ebay, I'd make them commit to sell at the price for pick-up.

02-26-2011, 06:36 PM	#72
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GeneV And they aren't smart enough to deal with that? I guess not automatically. There's a "report item" button to report items like that, but it usually takes ebay a few days to deal with it. It seems like it should be fairly easy for them to flag items that having shipping charges in the $700 range

02-26-2011, 06:39 PM	#73
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by dgaies I guess not automatically. There's a "report item" button to report items like that, but it usually takes ebay a few days to deal with it. It seems like it should be fairly easy for them to flag items that having shipping charges in the $700 range Or any offer with shipping charges that are more than, say, 10x the cost of the item.

02-26-2011, 06:55 PM	#74
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by dgaies He'd ask for $750. He's just trying to reduce the amount of commission he has to pay to ebay since you don't have to pay a commission on the shipping fees, only the sale price of the item. Or the lens was a dog. When the buyer sought refund, the shipping would be nonrefundable.

02-26-2011, 06:59 PM	#75
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GeneV Or any offer with shipping charges that are more than, say, 10x the cost of the item. The only issue there is that occasionally something will sell for $0.99 with $12 shipping and it will be legit. But I understand what you're saying and I'm sure someone could come up with a formula to detect out of line shipping costs fairly easily. Originally posted by wlachan Or the lens was a dog. When the buyer sought refund, the shipping would be nonrefundable. That was my first thought too, although ebay recently extended their buyer protection and you can now recover shipping fees as well as the sale price if you're sold a defective product.