Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-29-2011, 07:17 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Moe49's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns. USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 491
K7, K5, DA*16-50 users:

Edit[4/3/2011]:
I discovered what I beleive to be the main source of my blury 16-50 problem, and it watches me shave every morning in the mirror. Short version: Turn SR off when mounting lens on tri-pod for AF fine tuning. Thank you "Magic Lantern Guide" for pointing out my folly! After receiving & reading through most of the MLG this weekend, I re-ran the DA*16-50mm AF calibration test [SR off!] and it was 'dead-on', +/-0 adjustment needed. It is a testament to the lens design that I did get some decent shots out of it, even though it was grossly mis-calibrated by it's 'clueless' owner at -6.

This also points out that my K7 is likely innocent of any charges that it has a shutter-blur issue.

Original post:
Has your DA*16-50 lens delievered sharper photos with your K5?
Sharper than the pictures produced with the lens mounted on a K7?

I just got wind of the K7 shutter blur issue last week. I've spent most of the past week reading all the posts, reports and white papers about this issue.

And all this time prior, I've been suspicious of my DA*16-50 for so many 'unsatisfatory' wide angle shots. Lots of throw aways due to lack of sharpness and detail. In stark contrast, my DA*50-135 and FA*200 consistantly deliever very sharp images from my K7. Throw-aways with these lenses are rarely due to lack of crystal clear detail. So until now, I was not suspicious of the K7 at all.

Until I stumbled across the K7 shutter blur posts last week, I had actually been thinking about replacing my DA*16-50 with a FA*28-70 [legendary for it's sharpness].

Maybe I should be looking at replacing the K7 with a K5 instead?

K7, K5, DA*16-50mm users:
Has your DA*16-50 lens delievered consistantly sharper photos with your K5?


Last edited by Moe49; 04-04-2011 at 06:27 AM.
03-29-2011, 07:50 AM   #2
Veteran Member
farfisa's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,274
The shutter blur issue is only going to affect shots around 1/100-1/200 sec, not every shot. Is it mostly around these shutter speeds that you're seeing the problem?

One thing about the 16-50 is focus sometimes needs an extra try before hitting the right mark. Especially for the wider end and at infinity. I noticed it most when I had a split-screen installed and I'd take pics at infinity of buildings and could see they weren't in focus. I'd give it another half press and it would lock into focus.

Ideal? No. But when it hits, the 16-50 captures wonderful images.

The FA*28-70 isn't perfect either--I was reading up on that lens a while back too. Reports say that it isn't as sharp at the long end as people would hope. But I've seen nice stuff from it too.

The Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 are also worth a look. I had the 28-75 and it was very sharp--for sharpness, it could even match the FA*28-70 (and I've heard the Tamron is even better at the long end), but the FA* might have nicer bokeh.
03-29-2011, 02:19 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,404
QuoteOriginally posted by farfisa Quote
The shutter blur issue is only going to affect shots around 1/100-1/200 sec, not every shot. Is it mostly around these shutter speeds that you're seeing the problem?

One thing about the 16-50 is focus sometimes needs an extra try before hitting the right mark. Especially for the wider end and at infinity. I noticed it most when I had a split-screen installed and I'd take pics at infinity of buildings and could see they weren't in focus. I'd give it another half press and it would lock into focus.

Ideal? No. But when it hits, the 16-50 captures wonderful images.

The FA*28-70 isn't perfect either--I was reading up on that lens a while back too. Reports say that it isn't as sharp at the long end as people would hope. But I've seen nice stuff from it too.

The Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 are also worth a look. I had the 28-75 and it was very sharp--for sharpness, it could even match the FA*28-70 (and I've heard the Tamron is even better at the long end), but the FA* might have nicer bokeh.
My understanding is that the shutter blur is most pronounced at shutter speeds of 1/80 second to 1/100 second (Falk Lumo: LumoLabs: Shutter-induced blur with an SLR camera). I agree with the focus sometimes being not quite right on the 16-50, particularly at wide angles. Also, corners tend to get pretty soft at f2.8 in many situations. Seems to get better stopped down to f4.

I can honestly say that I haven't seen much issue with shutter blur on my K7.
04-01-2011, 06:07 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Moe49's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns. USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 491
Original Poster
Farfisa, Rondec,

Thank you for your responses.

Since my initial question remains unanswered, and not much interest shown here in the Lens forum, do you think I should re-post in the K5 forum?

04-01-2011, 07:00 AM   #5
Veteran Member
farfisa's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,274
QuoteOriginally posted by Moe49 Quote
Farfisa, Rondec,

Thank you for your responses.

Since my initial question remains unanswered, and not much interest shown here in the Lens forum, do you think I should re-post in the K5 forum?
I suppose it might be the thing to do, since you're asking a question about the difference between cameras.

But perhaps people were also waiting for your responses to (a) what shutter speeds you were witnessing the affect at and (b) whether you had eliminated improper focus as the issue.
04-01-2011, 10:10 AM   #6
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,545
I have both cameras and that lens. Quite frankly, I've never noticed a shutter blur problem with my K-7; like others have mentioned, when the 16-50mm hits the focus on the head, then it's capable of some pretty stellar images. However, I do believe that my pictures with it from my K-5 are sharper, BUT I do believe that this is because of the K-5's higher resolution.
04-01-2011, 10:12 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Moe49's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns. USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 491
Original Poster
>your responses to
>(a) what shutter speeds you were witnessing the affect

Tough to answer this 'cause all my unsatisfactory shots have been tossed into the trash. It is reasonable to assume I had many shots in the 'shutter blur' range [1/125-1/60sec] as I primarily shoot in Av mode with low ISO settings [100-200].

Recreating the 'bad' shots won't happen for awhile, as my spare time is currently focused on the giant Oak tree that fell across our private drive. I am whittling it up into firewood with the 'ol Husqvarna. Likely to get at least two Winters out of this behemoth!

>(b) whether you had eliminated improper focus as the issue.

Hence, part of the reason for asking the original question:
"Has your DA*16-50 lens delivered consistently sharper photos with your K5?"
or phrased another way: "Does your K5 do a better job than the K7 of focusing the DA*16-50, and not blurring the shot?"

I have gotten many beautiful photos out of my K7 mounted DA*16-50mm. But zooming in on a 22" monitor is often out of the question

Last edited by Moe49; 04-01-2011 at 04:02 PM.
04-03-2011, 07:00 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Moe49's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns. USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 491
Original Poster
Edit[4/3/2011]:
I discovered the main source of my blury 16-50 problem, and it watches me shave every morning in the mirror. Short version: Turn SR off when mounting lens on tri-pod for AF fine tuning. Thank you "Magic Lantern Guide" for pointing out my folly! After receiving & reading through most of the MLG this weekend, I re-ran the DA*16-50mm AF calibration test [SR off!] and it was 'dead-on', +/-0 adjustment needed. It is a testament to the lens design that I did get some decent shots out of it, even though it was grossly mis-calibrated by it's 'clueless' owner at -6.

This also points out that my K7 is likely innocent of any charges that it has a shutter-blur issue.


Last edited by Moe49; 04-04-2011 at 06:30 AM.
04-03-2011, 07:50 AM   #9
Veteran Member
farfisa's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,274
Hey Moe, glad you got that sorted out!
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!
da*16-50, detail, issue, k-mount, k5, k7, lack, lens, pentax lens, posts, sharpness, slr lens, week
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 users in US, where? vario Pentax K-5 4 12-05-2010 05:25 PM
KR What's new for k-x users? yusuf Pentax News and Rumors 39 08-26-2010 10:36 AM
hasselblad users? k100d Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 10-12-2009 09:59 PM
K-7 users question Mystic Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 06-02-2009 09:37 AM
SIGMA 10-20 f4-5.6 Users Jewelltrail Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 05-24-2009 05:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 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