Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-07-2013, 03:57 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,432
I like mine a lot. I sold my Sigma 17-50 (which I was very happy with) after comparing the two for a while.
In fact, I like it so much I even bought a second one (new for $750 ) when my first one was getting its SDM repaired (at no charge, despite being bought second-hand from Canada).

03-07-2013, 06:10 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
The sdm is defeatable. You may activate the screw drive. Wide open it is quite bad but f5.6 and above, it can compete with primes. Simply search flickr for photos. And the wr is God send. Imagine accidentally drowning your dslr in 3 feet of water, and to be pleasantly surprised that it came back to life weeks later. Paired with k5iis, it is buck for buck the toughest pair out there, and to imagine it actually the King of apsc, what else do you need? I have used 7d and d7000 btw.
03-07-2013, 06:58 AM   #33
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by Medium FormatPro Quote
Strongly agreed.

To point out to the general audience...

When paying that much for a lenses; also one of Pentax's supposed flagship lens; then one just might expect it to perhaps focus or even zoom. Yet both of those are issues with the Pentax 16-50.
The K-01 has proven that you can raise the opinion of a product dramatically (among many) by lowering its price dramatically. The 16-50 has been around enough years to recapture development costs. I wonder if the general opinion would change dramatically if the lens were priced at about like its counterparts from Sigma or Tamron?
03-07-2013, 07:56 AM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
There is way too much hyperbole around this lens. Basically, it is a good lens, with some weaknesses. It is prone to flare, has weak corners at 16mm and quite a bit of distortion at 16mm as well. If it was still priced in the 750 to 850 range, I would think it would be a great deal still and would highly recommend it.

Ricoh in their wisdom has raised prices astronomically and suddenly, the Tamron/Sigma options appear much better as options.

In the end, if you want sealing and this range, there just aren't many options out there. I do think the colors/contrast are pretty amazing.




03-07-2013, 09:55 AM   #35
Veteran Member
TenZ.NL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Below sealevel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,100
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
The K-01 has proven that you can raise the opinion of a product dramatically (among many) by lowering its price dramatically. The 16-50 has been around enough years to recapture development costs. I wonder if the general opinion would change dramatically if the lens were priced at about like its counterparts from Sigma or Tamron?
Development yes, garantee repair & replacements no
03-07-2013, 10:36 AM   #36
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There is way too much hyperbole around this lens. Basically, it is a good lens, with some weaknesses. It is prone to flare, has weak corners at 16mm and quite a bit of distortion at 16mm as well.
That pretty much sums it up. The flare problem is for me its biggest drawback and why I will replace it with the 15 Limited and the Limited zoom...
03-07-2013, 10:52 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Buschmaster's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 806
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
That pretty much sums it up. The flare problem is for me its biggest drawback and why I will replace it with the 15 Limited and the Limited zoom...
Limited zoom??
03-07-2013, 10:59 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Buschmaster Quote
Limited zoom??
Its on the roadmap, we most likely see it this year.
It's about 20-40mm lens by the looks of it.

03-07-2013, 11:29 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Buschmaster's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 806
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Its on the roadmap, we most likely see it this year.
It's about 20-40mm lens by the looks of it.
Not to be a jerkface, but how do we know this lens will be any better? Or not face the same issues this lens does?
03-07-2013, 11:46 AM   #40
Pentaxian
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,446
The DA 16-50/2.8 is a fine lens but.... I have quite a few Pentax lenses but this is the only lens which falls into the "fine lens but category." It has weather sealing, great colors, a fast 2.8 speed, and is really sharp when stopped down a little. On the other hand it has more distortion at 16mm than I would like, some flare, a high price and SDM issues. I still like and use the lens often but I keep wondering when SDM will rear its ugly head. This is a concern shared by no other lens in my bag. Is there a better zoom lens out there at this focal length and speed? I don't know. I won't be selling the lens anytime soon but...........
03-07-2013, 11:48 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,674
QuoteOriginally posted by Buschmaster Quote
how do we know this lens will be any better? Or not face the same issues this lens does?
Well, being "Limited," it ought to be screwdrive.

My guess: Son of FA 20-35.
03-07-2013, 12:35 PM   #42
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by TenZ.NL Quote
Development yes, garantee repair & replacements no
Maybe for the design as well. I notice that the Tokina version for Nikon DX (where still available) isn't all that much less. Amazon.com: Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X 165 PRO DX Autofocus Lens for Nikon: Camera & Photo.
04-23-2013, 07:54 AM   #43
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
I have no doubt the Tamron and Sigma alternatives are good lenses. And if I was looking to buy one now, I'd probably take a look at the Tamron 17-50 first, since it's cheaper as well. Also, I have both the 17-70 and the 16-50, and I've compared them and the 17-70 seems sharper in some cases.

But, when I look at the photos I actually took with the 16-50, they are good, and I actually think I like it better than the 17-70, for some reason. Maybe the AF is also more accurate, I don't know. Anyway, I took this portrait in Stone Town, Zanzibar at 50mm and f/3.5:


It is sharp, at least where it matters. So for me, it delivers, and that's really all that counts. Besides, 16mm is wider than the Tamron's 17mm, which for me is very welcome.
04-23-2013, 12:57 PM - 1 Like   #44
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
Gonna jump in feet first here.

First thing: f**king weather sealing! It was the draw of weather sealing that drove me to slap down £639 for this swine AND sell a really decent £200 Tammy to help pay for it. This ignored two things:
  1. The 16-50 may like the rain but I don't
  2. If I'm in the rain, I'm outside. This means I've got plenty of light so I can use the perfectly acceptable 18-55mm.
It's not that it's a bad lens. But at that price, I don't just expect perfection, I expect miracles. It's just not good enough: resolution is a bit all over the place, CA is poorly controlled, quality control is iffy and you're playing SDM roulette. It handles terribly: the poor balance means that it feels a whole lot more than its (considerable) actual weight. It's the only zoom lens I've ever used that is more wieldy at maximum extension than minimum.

Back to that price. £639 was a special offer. Currently it's £700 - £800. That makes it significantly more than the corresponding Sony and Canon models. Yeah, I know there's a Nikon 17-55 that comes in more than a grand. Maybe it comes with an oral favour attachment. I dunno. Nikon users are clearly even stupider than me if they don't buy the Tamron / Sigma models instead.

I rather enjoyed some of the endorsements in this thread. "Ideal for cathedrals". Hmm. Cathedrals don't exactly move so a combination of stabilization and wide angles means that slow shutter speeds should be fine. "Tack sharp at F5.6". Great! And I've paid for F2.8 because...?

In case it isn't clear, I didn't much like this one. I'd rather have good F4 than indifferent F2.8. Unfortunately, the class that the 16-50 is in is a bit, well, remedial.
04-23-2013, 01:31 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
Gonna jump in feet first here.

First thing: f**king weather sealing! It was the draw of weather sealing that drove me to slap down £639 for this swine AND sell a really decent £200 Tammy to help pay for it. This ignored two things:
  1. The 16-50 may like the rain but I don't
  2. If I'm in the rain, I'm outside. This means I've got plenty of light so I can use the perfectly acceptable 18-55mm.
It's not that it's a bad lens. But at that price, I don't just expect perfection, I expect miracles. It's just not good enough: resolution is a bit all over the place, CA is poorly controlled, quality control is iffy and you're playing SDM roulette. It handles terribly: the poor balance means that it feels a whole lot more than its (considerable) actual weight. It's the only zoom lens I've ever used that is more wieldy at maximum extension than minimum.

Back to that price. £639 was a special offer. Currently it's £700 - £800. That makes it significantly more than the corresponding Sony and Canon models. Yeah, I know there's a Nikon 17-55 that comes in more than a grand. Maybe it comes with an oral favour attachment. I dunno. Nikon users are clearly even stupider than me if they don't buy the Tamron / Sigma models instead.

I rather enjoyed some of the endorsements in this thread. "Ideal for cathedrals". Hmm. Cathedrals don't exactly move so a combination of stabilization and wide angles means that slow shutter speeds should be fine. "Tack sharp at F5.6". Great! And I've paid for F2.8 because...?

In case it isn't clear, I didn't much like this one. I'd rather have good F4 than indifferent F2.8. Unfortunately, the class that the 16-50 is in is a bit, well, remedial.
I know that copies differ, but let me be clear, my copy is head and shoulders better with regard to image quality than the 18-55 kit lens. I agree, it could/should be both better and cheaper, but I have absolutely no problems with resolution, as long as I am not shooting into the sun. f4 is sharp throughout the range and f2.8 is usable (borders are really weak in the 16mm-20mm range at f2.8). As I said, there is way too much hyperbole -- worst lens ever or, awesome lens. The reality is somewhere in between and I personally, value the things the 16-50 is strong in and avoid its weaknesses as much as possible.
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!
grief, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, sdm, sigma, slr lens, tamron, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
just bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - it's as good as they say MiguelATF Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 04-14-2015 06:40 AM
Is the DA* 16-50 really as bad as everyone says? runslikeapenguin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 64 11-23-2012 05:57 PM
Is this vivitar lens as valuable as I think it is? ripit Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-16-2011 07:59 AM
Question Ordering from BH/Want PF to benefit as much as possible LowVoltage Site Suggestions and Help 2 03-30-2011 05:58 PM
Advice for f1.4 lens? (not as simple as it sounds? or maybe it is..) eyou Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 39 11-23-2009 11:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 PM. | 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