[blackcloudbrew]

I've had one of these since 2009, it's been repaired twice (SDM one time, a self-induced damage to the front element another time, ok, I dropped it), it's still my favorite lens and I have a lot of lenses.

[LaurenOE]

I really like mine. I love it to be exact. Sure, I'm prepared for the possible SDM issue, but it's a great lens. I'm very happy to own one.

[tcbubbleleo]

the DA* 16-50, is big in size, expensive, doesn't perform well in 2.8. I got mine damaged in a hiking accident, didn't border to send out to fix it, got a tammy 18-50, and have never looked back. The only thing I can say miss using it was the wide end 16mm.....only

[Buschmaster]

Few things can get people on this forum going more than this lens. I love it

Why don't Tamron or Sigma try and get into weather sealed lenses? It'd be interesting to see a standard zoom sealed up by another company. Wonder if the reason they don't is because there are trade-offs as we see with the 16-50 or if they don't think they can compete.

If funds were unlimited perhaps a lot of people would have the Pentax AND the Sigma? (Or Tamron)

[jpyykonen]

Almost every time I see topic about this lens and the bashing it gets, I have to check the images I have taken with it and the fact that is it really THAT bad? And the answer every time is no. I have also Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Pentax DA 17-70/4 but I like the results of this lens best. TBH I don't understand all the bashing it gets. Yes, there is "hard evidence" about it (how bad it is) but I just cannot see those (or I have learned to avoid or overcome those). And yes, I check the images 100% view in Lightroom 4. Maybe I'm just lucky to have good copy? I had problems with it with K-7, but K-5 somehow fixed those (so I assume those were something to do with autofocus). I won't sell mine so it won't get all the hate it may get

[Buschmaster]

Interesting that you also have the Tamron 17-50 but like the Pentax 16-50's results more... Care to give me the Tamron?!

No, but really, why hang onto the Tamron?

[jpyykonen]

Interesting that you also have the Tamron 17-50 but like the Pentax 16-50's results more... Care to give me the Tamron?!

No, but really, why hang onto the Tamron?

Biggest reason I still have Tamron is because my girlfriend also likes to use it now and then. Also I don't see reason to sell it at the price it goes used here (~200€). At that price it can as well be backup. 17-70/4 is my newest lens so haven't really made my mind about it. Also it is up to my GF which one she likes the best. But eventually one of those have to go if they don't see enough use

[sarabico]

This conversation shows that pentax knew what to do long time ago. Pentax have the ingredients to build the best cameras in the market. But it´s a shame they don´t even know exactly how to do it. And as consequence, you have the gh3, weather sealed, with a 12-35mm f2.8 also weather sealed. Pentax did it first. But panasonic sells it better.

[NZ_Ross]

Almost every time I see topic about this lens and the bashing it gets, I have to check the images I have taken with it and the fact that is it really THAT bad? And the answer every time is no. I have also Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Pentax DA 17-70/4 but I like the results of this lens best. TBH I don't understand all the bashing it gets. Yes, there is "hard evidence" about it (how bad it is) but I just cannot see those (or I have learned to avoid or overcome those). And yes, I check the images 100% view in Lightroom 4. Maybe I'm just lucky to have good copy? I had problems with it with K-7, but K-5 somehow fixed those (so I assume those were something to do with autofocus). I won't sell mine so it won't get all the hate it may get

I am the same - I check my photos, including some fantastic ones from Helsinki and Turku in Finland last year (sorry didn't get to Tampere) and go - its a lens I am happy with.

I find it interesting that people who live in 'outdoors' sort of places - Finland, New Zealand, parts of US etc - seem to be keener on this lens. Our weather is pretty changeable here and as a result the WR is important to me.

Few things can get people on this forum going more than this lens. I love it

It does seem to be a lens that inspires strong opinions.

Clearly some have had very bad experiences with it. I have had good experiences, shooting it on a K5 so I am happy. I am also realistic about the risks with this lens, and took them into account when I brought it, and with the price I paid for it. If the SDM failed I would be philosophical rather than grumpy - in the mean time, I am still enjoying using it

[NZ_Ross]

Blog | Photos (kuvat.fi)
PENTAX K-5 | K10D GP | *ist D | Q

I have just clicked through and had a look at your photos - some really nice ones in there. Can I encourage others to have a look

[TenZ.NL]

Almost every time I see topic about this lens and the bashing it gets, I have to check the images I have taken with it and the fact that is it really THAT bad? And the answer every time is no. I have also Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Pentax DA 17-70/4 but I like the results of this lens best. TBH I don't understand all the bashing it gets. Yes, there is "hard evidence" about it (how bad it is) but I just cannot see those (or I have learned to avoid or overcome those). And yes, I check the images 100% view in Lightroom 4. Maybe I'm just lucky to have good copy? I had problems with it with K-7, but K-5 somehow fixed those (so I assume those were something to do with autofocus). I won't sell mine so it won't get all the hate it may get

I am the same - I check my photos, including some fantastic ones from Helsinki and Turku in Finland last year (sorry didn't get to Tampere) and go - its a lens I am happy with.

I find it interesting that people who live in 'outdoors' sort of places - Finland, New Zealand, parts of US etc - seem to be keener on this lens. Our weather is pretty changeable here and as a result the WR is important to me.



It does seem to be a lens that inspires strong opinions.

Clearly some have had very bad experiences with it. I have had good experiences, shooting it on a K5 so I am happy. I am also realistic about the risks with this lens, and took them into account when I brought it, and with the price I paid for it. If the SDM failed I would be philosophical rather than grumpy - in the mean time, I am still enjoying using it

Same here, I like it a lot. Yes, it has it`s quirks but overall it quite good.
IIRC somewhere (can`t remember) in my research before buying this lens there was a statement that this lens was more intended for general purpose-, travel- and landscape shooting rather then thin DoF shots and this is exactly why and how I`m using this lens. Maybe there is some thruth in there after all?

[NZ_Ross]

Zenfolio | Ross Waugh's Photographs | Finland

Here is an image I took in Finland last year with the Pentax 16-50mm at 16mm, f2.8, 1/45. ISO3200 handheld. I am still happy - no doubt others will find plenty wrong with it - but I am happy because it was a tricker shot for me at the time, the place is a world heritage site and was swarming with tourists - so getting this shot with no-one in it was an act in itself, and I needed all the lens could give me - wide, aperture etc to actually get what I wanted.

At the end of the day, if you are using a lens, and you are happy with your results at the time - isn't that what it is all about

[djseeram]

I like mine a lot. I got one with SDM problems, works but is slow to wake up, very cheap. It is way overpriced at the list price.

[thoughton]

At the end of the day, if you are using a lens, and you are happy with your results at the time - isn't that what it is all about

Yes, absolutely, but what people in this thread are saying is that you can get as good or better results for less money with a Sigma or Tamron. Considerably less money in the Tamron's case. The only thing you lose is weather sealing, which for many people (who don't enjoy or spend much time out in the rain) this isn't a major issue.

[NZ_Ross]

Yes, absolutely, but what people in this thread are saying is that you can get as good or better results for less money with a Sigma or Tamron. Considerably less money in the Tamron's case. The only thing you lose is weather sealing, which for many people (who don't enjoy or spend much time out in the rain) this isn't a major issue.

I absolutely agree - which is why I linked to the PF comparative review earlier in this thread.

If you don't need weather sealing then the Tamron or the Sigma both seem to be excellent choices. That was the point the OP was making.

If you do need weather sealing then the Pentax 16-50 is a good lens.

The day I was at Suomenlinna, Helsinki it absolutely persisted down with rain most of the day (in fact the whole weekend was like that). Suomenlinna is a UNESCO World Heritage site and well worth the visit - the day I went was the only day I had available to go there. It is times like that - when travelling on tight schedules, that having a WR lens is the difference between taking photos or not. I was very pleased I had the 16-50 with me that weekend.

I brought the 16-50 specifically to cover a range of scenarios when travelling internationally on tight schedules. I only take one small Crumpler 5 bag with the K5, 16-50, 55-300 and a couple of limited primes. I never have space to take a big bag of photo gear, plus it adds considerably to the hassle factor.

So, it comes back to what do you need the lens for - my DA*16-50 works for me