Has anyone used a DA* 16-50 and/or 50-135 for more than 2 years?

8540tomg · 04-21-2011, 08:28 AM

Bought the DA* 16~50/2.8 in 2009. So far no issues in admittedly light use.

Tom G

Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-21-2011 at 09:56 AM.

Bratsch-Ist* · 04-21-2011, 09:03 AM

Had my 50-135 over 3 years. It has been obstreperous perhaps 3 times (but, interestingly, not in the last year) Works like a charm.
Have had the 16-50 over 2 years. It died once, and was fixed under warranty.
I am very happy with them both. Real workhorses.

johnmflores · 04-21-2011, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Bratsch-Ist*

Had my 50-135 over 3 years. It has been obstreperous perhaps 3 times (but, interestingly, not in the last year) Works like a charm.
Have had the 16-50 over 2 years. It died once, and was fixed under warranty.
I am very happy with them both. Real workhorses.

Double-word score for obstreperous!

EricT · 04-22-2011, 08:08 AM

I've had my 16-50 for about two years now, it has traveled around the world and been through sand, snow and rain without issues. I love this lens. I don't agree about the AF, it's pretty fast, at least a lot faster than the 50-135mm. I have to admit I'm a bit worried about the SDM, but I can pay for three repairs before it adds up to the price of the only equivalent lens, the 17-55 from Nikon.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Takumar 135 2.5 vs Super Tak 135 3.5, both bayonet mount, which is better?	chongmic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	04-09-2011 11:55 PM
32 years	graphicgr8s	General Talk	35	08-17-2009 03:34 PM
95 years apart	ismaelg	Post Your Photos!	7	07-07-2009 06:29 PM

04-21-2011, 08:28 AM	#31
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Bought the DA* 16~50/2.8 in 2009. So far no issues in admittedly light use. Tom G Last edited by 8540tomg; 04-21-2011 at 09:56 AM.

04-21-2011, 09:03 AM	#32
Bratsch-Ist* New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 2	Had my 50-135 over 3 years. It has been obstreperous perhaps 3 times (but, interestingly, not in the last year) Works like a charm. Have had the 16-50 over 2 years. It died once, and was fixed under warranty. I am very happy with them both. Real workhorses.

04-21-2011, 10:43 AM	#33
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Bratsch-Ist* Had my 50-135 over 3 years. It has been obstreperous perhaps 3 times (but, interestingly, not in the last year) Works like a charm. Have had the 16-50 over 2 years. It died once, and was fixed under warranty. I am very happy with them both. Real workhorses. Double-word score for obstreperous!

04-22-2011, 08:08 AM	#34
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	I've had my 16-50 for about two years now, it has traveled around the world and been through sand, snow and rain without issues. I love this lens. I don't agree about the AF, it's pretty fast, at least a lot faster than the 50-135mm. I have to admit I'm a bit worried about the SDM, but I can pay for three repairs before it adds up to the price of the only equivalent lens, the 17-55 from Nikon.