[GlennG]

I'm thinking of getting the DA* 16-50 and using it on my k100dSuper - would this lens be overkill (and hence a waste of money) for the mere 6 MP sensor? Or would I get some of the fabulous color/contrast/sharpness that others state with their (good) copy of the lens? I would be purchasing the 16-50 only for the optical qualities at f/4 and above as I don't need it for WR, range, build, SDM, or f/2.8. Thanks. Glenn

[David&karen]

In my rant over the 16-50 I feel getting a good one is difficult. But I used my neighbors 17-70 and it was brilliant at f4 through 50mm, but needs to be stopped down a little at 70mm. That's probably the lens I'll be getting, and if you don't need f2.8 it was clearly sharper at f4 than the 16-50, plus lots cheaper.

David

[Andi Lo]

I dont see why you wouldn't need f/2.8. More speed is always useful

Like David&karen said though, if you're sure you dont need the 2.8, the 17-70 might be a better lens, or even the 16-45. Much lighter, smaller, and cheaper

[blackcloudbrew]

Works great on my K100ds. Don't see why not.

[Aegon]

I love that sensor so much. It will make great photos. I can't think of any reason not to use nice lenses on the K100DS.

[MegaPower]

you have to pay for the f2.8.
I use my 16-50 on K10D. I don't see a result why not.

[Ash]

No such thing as overkill in lens quality.
There's more to image quality than just resolution.
Enjoy the combination.

[RoxnDox]

I use my DA 12-24 on my K100D (not S), and it's just fine... When I wind up doing an upgrade someday it'll do just fine on hte new body - so get the lens, use it on your K100DS, and enjoy!

Jim

[Ash]

Some of my finest results have been using my DA 12-24 and DA* 16-50 on my old *ist D - not because it did better than the K20D that I had, but because it was the camera I had on me at the time of taking the shots...

[GlennG]

Thanks for the responses, all. Ash, I've seen some of that work of yours - really enjoyable to view. Thanks. Glenn

[audiobomber]

I recommend the 16-45mm. It's the equal of the 16-50 in sharpness and has lower distortion at the wide end. You don't need the weather resistance and you say you don't need f/2.8. That really levels the playing field. Silent focus is a nice feature, but not as reliable as screw drive. Size and weight favor the 16-45, price radically favours the 16-45. I used the 16-45 on my K100DS and it was substantial upgrade from the kit lens. Check out the review at Photozone and in the review page on this site. It's that good.

[Just1MoreDave]

I keep looking for a 16-50/2.8 with broken SDM for sale, for $250-300. It would make a great lens for my *ist DS at a price just at/above the 16-45/4, AF would still work, I could use it on the K-7 in manual focus...

[audiobomber]

I keep looking for a 16-50/2.8 with broken SDM for sale, for $250-300. It would make a great lens for my *ist DS at a price just at/above the 16-45/4, AF would still work, I could use it on the K-7 in manual focus...

A 16-50mm with no SDM would be manual focus only on the OP's K100D Super.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I wouldn't do without f/2.8 for my main lens. That's why I have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. My next zoom will probably be the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8.

And while the lens may be able to out-resolve your sensor, there's a lot more to image quality than just resolution. And f/2.8 will allow you to get sharper, cleaner pictures, since you'll be able to use a higher shutter speed and/or lower ISO. Plus, you can get more shallow depth of field.

Besides, you'll be able to continue to enjoy the lens on whatever camera bodies you buy in the future.

[Just1MoreDave]

A 16-50mm with no SDM would be manual focus only on the OP's K100D Super.

Yes, but on my DS, brilliant!

Of course, I would be crushed with guilt every time the AF worked, thinking about the financial and emotional loss on the previous owner.

Then happy about my great new AF lens!