DA* 16-50mm Serial Number Database.

ranamar · 03-10-2008, 12:21 PM

9012509, so far so good.

song_hm · 03-10-2008, 02:48 PM

9016333 - bad copy, returned

frank · 03-10-2008, 07:38 PM

Just got mine yesterday. On K10D it is a really ugly one especially at the wide end

But on K20D it looks pretty okay even w/o any focusing adjustment (hard to do AF adjustment for a zoom lens anyway).

So it's a bad copy on K10D, but a good one on K20D.

BTW, its sn: 9017525.

sashae · 03-11-2008, 12:12 PM

9012541, good.

Last edited by sashae; 12-27-2008 at 01:24 PM.

Timbuctoo · 03-11-2008, 06:01 PM

I did some basic stats. So far there are 16 posts on the 16-50mm lens. 9 have been good versions and 7 have been bad. That works out to being;

Good = 56.25%
Bad = 43.75%

So far that's not really good enough for a lense worth the amount it's selling for even if the lense has been specifically calibrated to function as specified on the K20D because most of us still use the K10D.

I'd really like to get both the SDM lenses but as far as this lense is concerned I'll wait till the good verses bad ratio looks a bit better. I might give it a crack when the % of good lenses reaches 70%. Keep posting because it helps to get accurate results.

Tim H

frank · 03-11-2008, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Timbuctoo

I did some basic stats. So far there are 16 posts on the 16-50mm lens. 9 have been good versions and 7 have been bad. That works out to being;

Good = 56.25%
Bad = 43.75%

So far that's not really good enough for a lense worth the amount it's selling for even if the lense has been specifically calibrated to function as specified on the K20D because most of us still use the K10D.

I'd really like to get both the SDM lenses but as far as this lense is concerned I'll wait till the good verses bad ratio looks a bit better. I might give it a crack when the % of good lenses reaches 70%. Keep posting because it helps to get accurate results.

Tim H

The DA*50-135 has been widely reported as a good lens. I tested three of them, all are pretty good. My newly purchased one is good on both K10D and K20D.

As to the DA16-50, the majority problem is the BF problem at the wide end on K10D camera, but mine works fine on the new K20D camera (while pretty bad on K10D, probably the worst among the 3 I've used). I've seen similar report (by Wim from Netherlands) on DPR. But seems some guys have problem focusing on the infinity w/ the DA1650 and K20D combo too ...

Kahless · 03-11-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Good = 56.25%
Bad = 43.75%

Of course compiling that stat from this thread is not a true reflection of the quality of this lens, and is probably a form of selection bias.
People are more likely to search out a possible problem with their lens (pentax forums would be one of the first places found), and then post here.
Lots of people with a good copy of this lens will never even bother visiting here, even fewer still would bother to register, and fewer still to post come post and say that their lens was good, but never come back here again.

The only one that would have any accurate numbers on this is Pentax, and chances are slim they would ever release that info.

The idea behind this thread is a decent idea though, just to see if there is any correlation between model numbers and bad lenses.

applejax · 03-12-2008, 05:16 AM

It would be beneficial to include date of purchase and where purchased from.

Buddha Jones · 03-15-2008, 09:51 AM

Probably not as beneficial to find a manufacture date...

huqedato · 03-16-2008, 05:56 PM

Mine is 9017549, bought in France from Digit-Photo in December.
No problems detected so far, works perfectly. Good copy.

bigben91682 · 03-17-2008, 12:54 PM

Recieved my second copy today from Amazon. Absolute rubbish, worst than the first.

SN 9018137

(only about 120 ahead of my last bad one which was post #3 in this thread)

I give up on this lens for now...it's going back and I'm going to see if I can find a 16-45 locally because I need it for this weekend...or just take the kit with me...

Steven Yampolsky · 03-17-2008, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

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.

Any chance someone can post test procedure as well? Common test procedure will only make these results more consistent.

SpecialK · 03-18-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

I did some basic stats. So far there are 16 posts on the 16-50mm lens. 9 have been good versions and 7 have been bad. That works out to being;

Good = 56.25%
Bad = 43.75%

So far that's not really good enough for a lense worth the amount it's selling for even if the lense has been specifically calibrated to function as specified on the K20D because most of us still use the K10D.

I'd really like to get both the SDM lenses but as far as this lense is concerned I'll wait till the good verses bad ratio looks a bit better. I might give it a crack when the % of good lenses reaches 70%. Keep posting because it helps to get accurate results.

Tim H

16 is a statistically insignificant sample. And, "good" or "bad" is hardly analytical and may only be based on expectations or...?

I do agree it does not look promising at this point. Luckily, I'm not looking to get this lens, but the 50-135 has some potential.

jsherman999 · 03-19-2008, 06:02 PM

.

It's worth it, people!!

Some test shots taken the last couple days from a good copy:

Picasa Web Albums - Jay - DA_16_50

.

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-20-2008, 01:18 AM

I have SN 9015311. Although it was back focusing a little, between 10 and 40mm, I was getting really great images with it. I did send it , the 50-135, and the K10D to Pentax USA for service and adjustment. I got it all back within two weeks all nice and shiny and clean. It no longer back focuses and the images are just as good as before.

03-19-2008, 06:02 PM	#29
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	. It's worth it, people!! Some test shots taken the last couple days from a good copy: Picasa Web Albums - Jay - DA_16_50 . Last edited by jsherman999; 03-19-2008 at 06:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens Serial Number Database	Ole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	63	06-24-2019 01:47 AM
K1000 Serial Number Database	Ole	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	233	02-26-2012 10:30 AM
Serial Number Database	royal07	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	10-15-2010 05:04 PM
Pentax 50mm f/1.2 lens serial number id?	sandpipe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	08-25-2008 05:55 AM

03-10-2008, 12:21 PM	#16
ranamar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 88	9012509, so far so good.

03-10-2008, 02:48 PM	#17
song_hm Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	9016333 - bad copy, returned

03-10-2008, 07:38 PM	#18
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Just got mine yesterday. On K10D it is a really ugly one especially at the wide end But on K20D it looks pretty okay even w/o any focusing adjustment (hard to do AF adjustment for a zoom lens anyway). So it's a bad copy on K10D, but a good one on K20D. BTW, its sn: 9017525.

03-11-2008, 12:12 PM	#19
sashae Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: nyc Posts: 33	9012541, good. Last edited by sashae; 12-27-2008 at 01:24 PM.

03-11-2008, 06:01 PM	#20
Timbuctoo Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 203	I did some basic stats. So far there are 16 posts on the 16-50mm lens. 9 have been good versions and 7 have been bad. That works out to being; Good = 56.25% Bad = 43.75% So far that's not really good enough for a lense worth the amount it's selling for even if the lense has been specifically calibrated to function as specified on the K20D because most of us still use the K10D. I'd really like to get both the SDM lenses but as far as this lense is concerned I'll wait till the good verses bad ratio looks a bit better. I might give it a crack when the % of good lenses reaches 70%. Keep posting because it helps to get accurate results. Tim H

03-11-2008, 06:40 PM	#21
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Originally posted by Timbuctoo I did some basic stats. So far there are 16 posts on the 16-50mm lens. 9 have been good versions and 7 have been bad. That works out to being; Good = 56.25% Bad = 43.75% So far that's not really good enough for a lense worth the amount it's selling for even if the lense has been specifically calibrated to function as specified on the K20D because most of us still use the K10D. I'd really like to get both the SDM lenses but as far as this lense is concerned I'll wait till the good verses bad ratio looks a bit better. I might give it a crack when the % of good lenses reaches 70%. Keep posting because it helps to get accurate results. Tim H The DA*50-135 has been widely reported as a good lens. I tested three of them, all are pretty good. My newly purchased one is good on both K10D and K20D. As to the DA16-50, the majority problem is the BF problem at the wide end on K10D camera, but mine works fine on the new K20D camera (while pretty bad on K10D, probably the worst among the 3 I've used). I've seen similar report (by Wim from Netherlands) on DPR. But seems some guys have problem focusing on the infinity w/ the DA1650 and K20D combo too ...

03-11-2008, 08:53 PM	#22
Kahless New Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Edmonton Posts: 6	Quote: Good = 56.25% Bad = 43.75% Of course compiling that stat from this thread is not a true reflection of the quality of this lens, and is probably a form of selection bias. People are more likely to search out a possible problem with their lens (pentax forums would be one of the first places found), and then post here. Lots of people with a good copy of this lens will never even bother visiting here, even fewer still would bother to register, and fewer still to post come post and say that their lens was good, but never come back here again. The only one that would have any accurate numbers on this is Pentax, and chances are slim they would ever release that info. The idea behind this thread is a decent idea though, just to see if there is any correlation between model numbers and bad lenses.

03-12-2008, 05:16 AM	#23
applejax Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Albums Posts: 271	It would be beneficial to include date of purchase and where purchased from.

03-15-2008, 09:51 AM	#24
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587 Original Poster	Probably not as beneficial to find a manufacture date...

03-16-2008, 05:56 PM	#25
huqedato Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: France, EU Posts: 97	Mine is 9017549, bought in France from Digit-Photo in December. No problems detected so far, works perfectly. Good copy.

03-17-2008, 12:54 PM	#26
bigben91682 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 728	Recieved my second copy today from Amazon. Absolute rubbish, worst than the first. SN 9018137 (only about 120 ahead of my last bad one which was post #3 in this thread) I give up on this lens for now...it's going back and I'm going to see if I can find a 16-45 locally because I need it for this weekend...or just take the kit with me...

03-17-2008, 08:12 PM	#27
Steven Yampolsky Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 41	Originally posted by Buddha Jones 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. Any chance someone can post test procedure as well? Common test procedure will only make these results more consistent.

03-18-2008, 07:04 PM	#28
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Quote: I did some basic stats. So far there are 16 posts on the 16-50mm lens. 9 have been good versions and 7 have been bad. That works out to being; Good = 56.25% Bad = 43.75% So far that's not really good enough for a lense worth the amount it's selling for even if the lense has been specifically calibrated to function as specified on the K20D because most of us still use the K10D. I'd really like to get both the SDM lenses but as far as this lense is concerned I'll wait till the good verses bad ratio looks a bit better. I might give it a crack when the % of good lenses reaches 70%. Keep posting because it helps to get accurate results. Tim H 16 is a statistically insignificant sample. And, "good" or "bad" is hardly analytical and may only be based on expectations or...? I do agree it does not look promising at this point. Luckily, I'm not looking to get this lens, but the 50-135 has some potential.

03-20-2008, 01:18 AM	#30
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,845	I have SN 9015311. Although it was back focusing a little, between 10 and 40mm, I was getting really great images with it. I did send it , the 50-135, and the K10D to Pentax USA for service and adjustment. I got it all back within two weeks all nice and shiny and clean. It no longer back focuses and the images are just as good as before.