[jpdsr3]

Where do I find the database?
Thanks

[bc_the_path]

I think it is the thing that is created by all the messages ( except yours and mine, perhaps ) in this thread...
>Where do I find the database?
>Thanks

[sewebster]

Where do I find the database?
Thanks

This thread _IS_ the database. Occasionally someone posts a message with a collection of all the good and bad serial numbers. Go back through the pages to find the most recent one.

[Mark2100]

#9012487 Good copy. Bought at Epperson Photo in Oklahoma City March 08

[Graham67]

9024304 is a keeper.

Bought at Jacobs in Leicester, UK.


G

[John K]

I got mine from a website in Germany - serial 9022891. It seems to be close but not quite right. It loses focus on the right side of the image. These are at F8 at 28mm.
left side: middle: right side:
left side: right side:

I'm tempted to send it back to see if I can get a better copy - what do you think?

[TanGU]

I have the same problem as you, but with the left side being too soft, i did a topic about my problem if you want to compare my picture: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/39899-pentax-1...left-side.html

[Scooter]

OK, so I guess this is a long time coming, in an attempt to keep the histeria to a minimal, lets start keeping track of the good and bad serial numbers so we can try and see if there is a trend base on some facts rather than speculation.

Please help out, if you have a DA* 16-50mm please post your SN# here and wether it is a good or a bad copy and if it's a bad copy where you got it from. This will help to keep count of bad vs. good and perhaps build a corrolation with the serial numbers as well.

Thanks.

Serial Number 9018541 - Purchased from Digital City in Canberra Australia on 14/8/2008 Worked fine for 2 months then the auto focus failed and there was unusual noise from inside the lens when the focus ring was turned.

[Cooties]

sn 9013560 - Bad
Bought from Digital Camera Warehouse in Sydney (received 20/10/08).

Badly de-centred, right side of the image bad up till f8 (and even then it wasn't great). Sending back for replacement.

[TanGU]

sn 9013560 - Bad
Bought from Digital Camera Warehouse in Sydney (received 20/10/08).

Badly de-centred, right side of the image bad up till f8 (and even then it wasn't great). Sending back for replacement.

can you post a link showing the problem?

It will be nice if everyone else having a problem can post a link showing it.

And BTW, since this topic started 3 months ago, it will be nice of the OP to post some report of the "database"

[Cooties]

can you post a link showing the problem?

It will be nice if everyone else having a problem can post a link showing it.

And BTW, since this topic started 3 months ago, it will be nice of the OP to post some report of the "database"

I'll post some photos tonight when I get home from work.

Images Added:
Newspaper Test: Taken at 29mm and f2.8
Centre, Bottom Right, Bottom Left, Bottom Right at f8.0

Then a real world test at 16mm f2.8 (its even obvious when resized to 800 pix wide !!)

[pm42]

Mine is number 9024855, bought 1 month ago at Fnac Forum, Paris, France.
Maybe not the sharpest ever made but still ok. Well-centered, AF ok after a +5 correction on the K20D.

[TanGU]

Tested 5 of them, 4 was bad (the other, a demo that i wasn't able to buy), either bad centered or with a front focus problem, i didn't took all the SN in note (tested all lens directly at the store, with the focus chart!), but here's two i've took: 9025155 & 9030210, so i'm not very proud of Pentax right now, because wasn't able to buy any working 16-50mm lens. And i'll stop searching until Pentax do a mass recall, or a very very GOOD batch (if it is possible of them...)

[pakhead]

I got my lens S/N 9023660 back from Japan after 6 weeks - the zoom ring had jammed, there was a small part rattling around inside, and I was never happy with the performance.

It seems better. The zoom ring is smoother, and overall performance is sharper and more consistent.

I've just done a quick tripod test against my 4 year-old 16-45 inside my office and these are my impressions.

At 16mm it is noticeably softer at f/2.8 that the 16-45 at f/4 in the centre - but edge performance is closer. By f/4 the 16-50 is outperforming the 16-45 at f/4, and matching it at f4.5. At f/5.6 the 16-50 is the clear winner.

At 50mm the results are similar, except that the 16-50 is noticeably softer in the corners than the 16-45, even at the same aperture, up to f/4.5.

Interstingly the 16-50 seems a little wider at 16mm, and has a very slightly yellower cast under admittedly poor office lighting.

I shall report any problems/pleasures I encounter in real world usage.

[safari]

I think most of my 1650 problems at wide side are due to the lame AF system on K10d body.
at beginning it's really soft at 16mm on my k10d but on my friends' k200d it performs very good, later I tried this, only use AF button to focus, AF at 50mm , then zoom out to 16mm, press the shutter & every picture is sharp. hope it helps.

btw, the serial # of my copy is 9011891, bought 07 Dec from buydig for outdoors. at beginning i thought it's a bad one 'cause it's so soft at 16mm wide open. I simply put it aside & used my primes instead . got some free time this summer & did some test shot, comparing it w/ some of my zooms & primes, found that the focus point wanderring from here to there but actually there's no sharpness problems and the IQ beats Tamron /a09, sigma 1020 and is somehow close to the primes. So I recalled this 'focusing at the longer end and then zoom out' old trick i read somewhere from an old book long long ago. now i feel the lens is a real keeper, a little bit sorry for k10d's belong-to-last-century AF module though.