Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 02:52 PM

The reason the title is vague is because I am unsure what is disappointing me, my new K-5 or the DA* 16-50mm.

From my first few test shot, I can't seem to get a sharp picture. And the purple fringing is crazy bad. I read the reports and heavily underestimated their accuracy. Out of 20 or so shots, I could only find one image that seemed properly focused, and not fringed to death.

I am an experienced shooter, but this is my very first, one and only Pentax. So I have little to compare it to, but my D7000. I also don't have any other lens to try it out with, so, yeah.

The camera and lens are both brand new, fresh from Adorama, and B&H, respectively.

So I guess my question is, do K-5s have a frequent problem with focus and sharpness? Would a Tamron 17-50mm give me better results than the 16-50? What about the Pentax 17-70, I think I could suffer the loss of a stop of light if it is sharp and controls CA.

I am in the pursuit of happiness, and sure could use some help.

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 02:54 PM

Oh yeah, and the in body image stabilization seems a bit lacking. I can't seem to get sharp photos hand held at 16mm, 2.8, 1/20 second

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 02:55 PM

400 iso

JinDesu · 03-26-2012, 02:58 PM

Please post a few of the offending pictures up to this forum, preferably either full size, crops of the areas you find troubling, and some information on the settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, etc).

That will be a lot more helpful. Also, what AF mode are you using, what points are you using for AF, how are you shooting - do you pan an then shoot immediately after? Are you staying still and seeing the little green Hand sign come on to signify that the SR is working?

jase036 · 03-26-2012, 02:59 PM

I have a K-5 and I use it with both AF and MF lenses and the focus indicators are usually spot on. CA is very lens dependent so it might be an issue with your lens rather than the camera body. Most lenses correct for cromatic aberrations on the focus plane with some fringing in the out of focus areas being common, so if your images are not focused this could be the reason you are seeing so much CA. If you are able to go to your camera store I would suggest you see if you can't test the lens on another body or try another lens on your body to see what is causing the problem.

westmill · 03-26-2012, 03:04 PM

Both of the lenses you mention are better opticaly but the Pentax 16-50 isnt that bad.
I think you will find its the K5s focus points though. The focus points are huge and dont corespond to the focus squares.
The centre focus point reaches out all the way to the semicircle marks for spot metering. Try again, using the ( ) as your focus point.
Also... turn the SR off.
With luck, this should do it !

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 03:13 PM

Here is a crop.

ISO 100
16mm
2.8
1/1250 sec

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by westmill

Both of the lenses you mention are better opticaly but the Pentax 16-50 isnt that bad.
I think you will find its the K5s focus points though. The focus points are huge and dont corespond to the focus squares.
The centre focus point reaches out all the way to the semicircle marks for spot metering. Try again, using the ( ) as your focus point.
Also... turn the SR off.
With luck, this should do it !

Not sure why I would not use one of the main selling points of the Pentax system.

Parallax · 03-26-2012, 03:18 PM

Strange. Almost exactly 16 hours before starting this thread you posted in another thread that you were "More than happy with the K5". What changed?

Adam · 03-26-2012, 03:18 PM

The EXIF info would help- if you attach your photos here, it'll be visible.

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Strange. Almost exactly 16 hours before starting this thread you posted in another thread that you were "More than happy with the K5". What changed?

I posted that I am a recent Pentax convert, don't think I posted anything about actually using the camera until today, seeing as I didn't have a lens until today to try it with.

JinDesu · 03-26-2012, 03:21 PM

That seems VERY off - even for the 16-50mm at F2.8. It seems very odd - I'm not even sure if it's a focus issue - the EXIF says "subject distance: Far" and "approximate focus distance: 8". Searching around EXIFs from the same lens on Flickr, those two combinations seem like infinity focus (see example in link below):

All sizes | Storm Clouds in Sedona | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Something is going weird with your camera or lens.

psychdoc · 03-26-2012, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Better Image

Oh yeah, and the in body image stabilization seems a bit lacking. I can't seem to get sharp photos hand held at 16mm, 2.8, 1/20 second

1/20 second is too slow for handheld shots for most people, in body on in lens stabilization not likely to help that much.

Purple fringing: first thing I noticed in the wide angle shots with this lens.

Sharpness: did not seem great but not as bad as you describe.

Pentax 16-50: its definitely disliked by a lot of people, especially considering its cost. I have rented it twice to see whether I would want to buy it. The lens is nicely built and I liked using it, but nowhere near the quality of the Pentax 50-135 lens. The tamron 17-50 of sigma 17-50 are much better rated. I am still debating to get one of the them one of these days.

Read this comparative review:
DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

Parallax · 03-26-2012, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Better Image

I posted that I am a recent Pentax convert, don't think I posted anything about actually using the camera until today, seeing as I didn't have a lens until today to try it with.

Okay, I just assumed "I am more than happy with the K5" meant you had actually used it.

Better Image · 03-26-2012, 03:24 PM

Looking at some more of the samples I took, it seems that the 16mm end is very soft, even when I manual focus. The 50mm end seems just fine.

03-26-2012, 02:52 PM	#1
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22	Disappointed The reason the title is vague is because I am unsure what is disappointing me, my new K-5 or the DA* 16-50mm. From my first few test shot, I can't seem to get a sharp picture. And the purple fringing is crazy bad. I read the reports and heavily underestimated their accuracy. Out of 20 or so shots, I could only find one image that seemed properly focused, and not fringed to death. I am an experienced shooter, but this is my very first, one and only Pentax. So I have little to compare it to, but my D7000. I also don't have any other lens to try it out with, so, yeah. The camera and lens are both brand new, fresh from Adorama, and B&H, respectively. So I guess my question is, do K-5s have a frequent problem with focus and sharpness? Would a Tamron 17-50mm give me better results than the 16-50? What about the Pentax 17-70, I think I could suffer the loss of a stop of light if it is sharp and controls CA. I am in the pursuit of happiness, and sure could use some help.

03-26-2012, 03:18 PM	#10
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	The EXIF info would help- if you attach your photos here, it'll be visible. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Very disappointed with K 5 photos	whbroker	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	16	02-25-2012 12:55 PM
Disappointed in the 18-135WR	Immunogirl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	121	07-20-2011 03:11 PM
Disappointed with my last roll.	Gashog	Photographic Technique	9	09-27-2010 07:11 PM
Disappointed with Aperture 3	harmonica2	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	15	05-26-2010 09:04 PM
Really disappointed with KEH	ChipB	General Talk	7	05-10-2010 06:44 AM

03-26-2012, 02:54 PM	#2
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Oh yeah, and the in body image stabilization seems a bit lacking. I can't seem to get sharp photos hand held at 16mm, 2.8, 1/20 second

03-26-2012, 02:55 PM	#3
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22 Original Poster	400 iso

03-26-2012, 02:58 PM	#4
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Please post a few of the offending pictures up to this forum, preferably either full size, crops of the areas you find troubling, and some information on the settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, etc). That will be a lot more helpful. Also, what AF mode are you using, what points are you using for AF, how are you shooting - do you pan an then shoot immediately after? Are you staying still and seeing the little green Hand sign come on to signify that the SR is working?

03-26-2012, 02:59 PM	#5
jase036 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	I have a K-5 and I use it with both AF and MF lenses and the focus indicators are usually spot on. CA is very lens dependent so it might be an issue with your lens rather than the camera body. Most lenses correct for cromatic aberrations on the focus plane with some fringing in the out of focus areas being common, so if your images are not focused this could be the reason you are seeing so much CA. If you are able to go to your camera store I would suggest you see if you can't test the lens on another body or try another lens on your body to see what is causing the problem.

03-26-2012, 03:04 PM	#6
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Both of the lenses you mention are better opticaly but the Pentax 16-50 isnt that bad. I think you will find its the K5s focus points though. The focus points are huge and dont corespond to the focus squares. The centre focus point reaches out all the way to the semicircle marks for spot metering. Try again, using the ( ) as your focus point. Also... turn the SR off. With luck, this should do it !

03-26-2012, 03:13 PM	#7
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Here is a crop. ISO 100 16mm 2.8 1/1250 sec

03-26-2012, 03:16 PM	#8
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Originally posted by westmill Both of the lenses you mention are better opticaly but the Pentax 16-50 isnt that bad. I think you will find its the K5s focus points though. The focus points are huge and dont corespond to the focus squares. The centre focus point reaches out all the way to the semicircle marks for spot metering. Try again, using the ( ) as your focus point. Also... turn the SR off. With luck, this should do it ! Not sure why I would not use one of the main selling points of the Pentax system.

03-26-2012, 03:18 PM	#9
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Strange. Almost exactly 16 hours before starting this thread you posted in another thread that you were "More than happy with the K5". What changed?

03-26-2012, 03:20 PM	#11
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Originally posted by Parallax Strange. Almost exactly 16 hours before starting this thread you posted in another thread that you were "More than happy with the K5". What changed? I posted that I am a recent Pentax convert, don't think I posted anything about actually using the camera until today, seeing as I didn't have a lens until today to try it with.

03-26-2012, 03:21 PM	#12
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	That seems VERY off - even for the 16-50mm at F2.8. It seems very odd - I'm not even sure if it's a focus issue - the EXIF says "subject distance: Far" and "approximate focus distance: 8". Searching around EXIFs from the same lens on Flickr, those two combinations seem like infinity focus (see example in link below): All sizes \| Storm Clouds in Sedona \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Something is going weird with your camera or lens.

03-26-2012, 03:21 PM	#13
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by Better Image Oh yeah, and the in body image stabilization seems a bit lacking. I can't seem to get sharp photos hand held at 16mm, 2.8, 1/20 second 1/20 second is too slow for handheld shots for most people, in body on in lens stabilization not likely to help that much. Purple fringing: first thing I noticed in the wide angle shots with this lens. Sharpness: did not seem great but not as bad as you describe. Pentax 16-50: its definitely disliked by a lot of people, especially considering its cost. I have rented it twice to see whether I would want to buy it. The lens is nicely built and I liked using it, but nowhere near the quality of the Pentax 50-135 lens. The tamron 17-50 of sigma 17-50 are much better rated. I am still debating to get one of the them one of these days. Read this comparative review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

03-26-2012, 03:23 PM	#14
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by Better Image I posted that I am a recent Pentax convert, don't think I posted anything about actually using the camera until today, seeing as I didn't have a lens until today to try it with. Okay, I just assumed "I am more than happy with the K5" meant you had actually used it.

03-26-2012, 03:24 PM	#15
Better Image Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Looking at some more of the samples I took, it seems that the 16mm end is very soft, even when I manual focus. The 50mm end seems just fine.

Disappointed

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!