[Classvino]

9014806 seems OK - no strenuous testing yet, but test chart looks good...

Bought at Henry's, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

[augustmoon]

Wanted to wait a while before posting, to make sure

9011905 - Good

Aden Camera (new), Toronto, Ontario Canada

AF is correct on K20D (no Bf, no FF with no AF adjust applied on camera)
Not de-centered (center of focus is center of image, left and right OOF area equal)

[truonganh]

that looks on par with my fast fifties at 2.8, fully cropped.

anyone think it's bad, i like to see a 'good' example in comparison.

[fishy]

that looks on par with my fast fifties at 2.8, fully cropped.

anyone think it's bad, i like to see a 'good' example in comparison.

Thanks, been fishing for those myself. (if possible black print on white paper.. )

[fishy]

Just to check; should the DA16-50 be outperformed by the FA 50 2.8 @ f/5.0? (Mine is)
Voting 9029381 bad

[TanGU]

How can you know BEFORE buying the lens if it is good or not !??!?!

[jsherman999]

Just to check; should the DA16-50 be outperformed by the FA 50 2.8 @ f/5.0? (Mine is)
Voting 9029381 bad

??? Yes, by all means, the FA 50 f/2.8 should outperform the 16-50, at f/5 and even f/2.8... Did I understand your question correctly? A prime will almost always outperform a zoom, especially the FA 50 2.8 macro, which outperforms pretty much anything.

[fishy]

...A prime will almost always outperform a zoom...

In that case I might have to review my verdict; The da* @ f/5.6 at least matches the FA50 @ f/4.0 in crispness/sharpness. I might have been thrown off by bright light and hard contrast; my DA* suffers a lot from purple fringeing. Less light and it gets better.
One bad of mine: the FA is not the macro but the 1.4. (Sorry)

[jsherman999]

In that case I might have to review my verdict; The da* @ f/5.6 at least matches the FA50 @ f/4.0 in crispness/sharpness. I might have been thrown off by bright light and hard contrast; my DA* suffers a lot from purple fringeing. Less light and it gets better.
One bad of mine: the FA is not the macro but the 1.4. (Sorry)

Ah. But the answer is still yes, the FA 50 1.4 at f/4 is sharper than pretty much any zoom you can buy, including the DA* 50-135.

If your 16-50 at f/5.6 matches the FA 50 at f/4, then I'd say you have a very good copy based on that alone.

You could test for centering defects, FF/BF in low tungsten light (tricky for almost any lens,) but really you should get out and take a whole bunch of real-world shots and see how much it pleases you.

[fishy]

You could test for centering defects, FF/BF in low tungsten light (tricky for almost any lens,) but really you should get out and take a whole bunch of real-world shots and see how much it pleases you.

Thanks a lot for that jsherman. Maybe my expectations were just too high..
Dont want to be a measurbator (as demonstrated by limited skills) but unforunately I have very little time to see if the lens is good enough. I'll be leaving for East Timor shortly for an unknown time, so returning it from there would be ... tricky at best.

I will let it rest from here. Sorry if I abused this thread!

[suro]

I bought my Pentax 16-50* /2.8 lens recently a few days in Ekaterinburg (Russia). Number is: 9024487. By my personal opinion - is good lens. Few samples at f2.8:

Newspaper 100% crop:



My kitty (resize and 100% crop):





Flowers (resize):







Old newspaper (full size 10Mb JPEG):

http://ifolder.ru/7444451

P.S. Simple soft border - it's normal for must lens (and fix focal lens too).

[leadbelly]

i was about to buy a 16-50 awhile ago, but thought about asking here first... what should i look out for in the store? obviously, if it focuses sharp, BF/FF issues and what else? i'll be purchasing the lens tomorrow morning, just want to see what you guys would suggest on how to test..

[suro]

i was about to buy a 16-50 awhile ago, but thought about asking here first... what should i look out for in the store? obviously, if it focuses sharp, BF/FF issues and what else? i'll be purchasing the lens tomorrow morning, just want to see what you guys would suggest on how to test..

You must check:

1. Manual focus work.
2. Back and front focus (take the foto of plain text on the f2.8 by 45 degrees).
3. Sharp at f2.8 (take the photo of newspaper). Border of photo may by simple soft - it's normal for crop lens.
4. Auto focus work.

[suro]

For example (about soft border):



Center and corner, full frame fix focal 20mm lens on the crop body. Line 2 - by center, line 3 - by corner

[leadbelly]

I just got my 16-50, and after a few test shots, it seems like a good copy. a few questions though...

1) Is the zoom ring really a little stiff, especially around 28-35mm? Unlike the 50-135 that's smooth? (Is it because of the weathersealing in the front part of the barrel where the lens extends?)

2) Focusing wide open is sharp at 50mm, but when I focus at 16mm, it's a little soft. Is this normal when used with the K10? (as with my 50-135, focusing is soft at the wide end, whereas focusing at the long end is hella sharp... but when I tried the 50-135 on a k20, it was sharp all the way.) Is this a K10D only issue?

Thanks!