Tried out a DA* 16-50

Tighelander · 07-17-2013, 01:16 PM

What should I look out for in a used lens?
I was looking at a DA* 16-50 yesterday at a used camera shop. I took some photos with my K5IIs. I also took similar photos using a SP 28-80mm that's not highly thought of 'round these parts. The DA functioned okay. I was surprised at the purple fringing. Maybe I could have lowered the ISO since the shutter was at the max of 1/8000; maybe it was at the verge of being blown out. The shots with the SP are at a different focal length, and slightly slower aperture (f/4).

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

Driline · 07-17-2013, 02:15 PM

Wow the SP looks better. What the heck is going on here?

SALUKIS97 · 07-17-2013, 02:25 PM

I rented one to use for a wedding a few months ago. Wasn't very impressed.

My Tamron 28-75 ended up getting used much more. Now that's a good lens, especially for the price.

manntax · 07-17-2013, 02:26 PM

How you can actually compare two lenses at different apertures ? You should check them at the same apertures to have the least meaningful comparison. Also from these pictures it is quite hard to tell where the focus was spot on - this is another factor to consider that out of focus areas are likely have some sort of color aberrations at fully open aperture and this applies to virtually * any* lens.

Dean Bradshaw · 07-17-2013, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Tighelander

What should I look out for in a used lens?
Maybe I could have lowered the ISO since the shutter was at the max of 1/8000; maybe it was at the verge of being blown out. The shots with the SP are at a different focal length, and slightly slower aperture (f/4).

I think the first shot is blown out...certainly detail has been lost in over exposure.
Both shots were in Av...and by my maths shot 1 is at least +1.
Shot 1...f2.8, iso 400, 1/8000s
Shot 2...f4.0, iso 200, 1/4000s

This is not to say one lens is better than the other, just that the exposure is not equivalent between the shots.
Cheers
Dean

Tighelander · 07-17-2013, 05:20 PM

Well both are at the widest aperture of each lens, and both are near the center of the frame.
The lens didn't look abused. It focused quickly and silently. I've read nothing but good reviews for the lens. I felt rushed when taking the photos, maybe it's some error on my part. I was expecting it to be much sharper than the SP since it's not only a Pentax, but a "digital" lens.
Maybe a better comparison would have been to use an auto-focus lens, like the old Pentax AF kit lens that I have, I think its the 28-80mm f/3.5 - 4.5

Tighelander · 07-17-2013, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Dean Bradshaw

I think the first shot is blown out...certainly detail has been lost in over exposure.
Both shots were in Av...and by my maths shot 1 is at least +1.
Shot 1...f2.8, iso 400, 1/8000s
Shot 2...f4.0, iso 200, 1/4000s

This is not to say one lens is better than the other, just that the exposure is not equivalent between the shots.
Cheers
Dean

Good point; I didn't think about the numbers like that.

Kozlok · 07-17-2013, 07:17 PM

How's the SP perform at 2.8? I guess not at all. In low light, the DA16-50 will be a stop lower in ISO. Not a big deal at 200 vs 400, but a huge deal at 6400 vs 12800! That's when I want a large aperture lens. Either that, or I use the larger aperture for a shallower DOF. In this case, I'm usually focused pretty close. Again, not as possible on the slower lens.

In my experience, shooting at large apertures in bright light at medium or far distance delivers mediocre results. The focus could be anywhere, the DOF isn't what you expect it to be, there are a lot of internal reflections in the lens due to the larger aperture, contrast suffers and make the lens look soft. This, added to the fact that the shot is over exposed, lead me to recommend you ignore the results of the shot you posted. Lens designers don't expect you to take bright-light landscapes at f2.8, because that's an f11 shot, not an f2.8 shot.

Maybe take a friend along, go find some shade, and shoot a couple of portraits. Keep ISO the same. Use the hood. You should get a much better comparison. My guess is in the right lighting, with an appropriate subject for f2.8, you'll find it works much better.

Tighelander · 07-17-2013, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Kozlok

Keep ISO the same. Use the hood. You should get a much better comparison.

It had the hood on it. Thanks for the advice. I think I'll go back, and try it out again on Friday.

Maxington · 07-25-2013, 08:12 PM

I've never been that impressed with my DA* 16-50 at f2.8, but it shines when stopped down a bit.

It's ok at f2.8, but nothing amazing, it's good to have that speed when you need it though.

carrrlangas · 07-25-2013, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Maxington

I've never been that impressed with my DA* 16-50 at f2.8, but it shines when stopped down a bit.

True. The lens is great at f/4. (Note: If you select MTF program line, the camera defaults f/4 as the sharpest aperture)

Originally posted by Maxington

It's ok at f2.8, but nothing amazing, it's good to have that speed when you need it though.

Well, at least you are always making use of the f/2.8 each time you look through the viewfinder. This also makes a difference in any other lighting than good.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Shootout #2 - DA 15 Ltd / Tamron 17-50 @17 / DA* 16-50 @16 / Sigma 10-20 @16	EarlVonTapia	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	06-23-2013 10:17 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-5 body, 12-24, 16-50, 50-135, 18-250, 50-200, 55-300, Tamron 1.4x TC, and a DA 21mm	einstrigger	Sold Items	8	12-15-2012 12:33 AM
I tried out the Hasselblad H3Dii-50 briefly.	kcmadr	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	10-22-2009 07:45 AM
DA* 16-50, Help me out please. Testing.	Ed in GA	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-15-2008 01:35 PM
DA* 16-50 Vs DA 16-45, A Shootout	RiceHigh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	08-19-2007 05:54 PM

07-17-2013, 02:15 PM	#2
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,695	Wow the SP looks better. What the heck is going on here?

07-17-2013, 02:25 PM	#3
SALUKIS97 Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Dawg Country Posts: 41	I rented one to use for a wedding a few months ago. Wasn't very impressed. My Tamron 28-75 ended up getting used much more. Now that's a good lens, especially for the price.

07-17-2013, 02:26 PM	#4
manntax Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	How you can actually compare two lenses at different apertures ? You should check them at the same apertures to have the least meaningful comparison. Also from these pictures it is quite hard to tell where the focus was spot on - this is another factor to consider that out of focus areas are likely have some sort of color aberrations at fully open aperture and this applies to virtually * any* lens.

07-17-2013, 05:12 PM	#5
Dean Bradshaw Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 322	Originally posted by Tighelander What should I look out for in a used lens? Maybe I could have lowered the ISO since the shutter was at the max of 1/8000; maybe it was at the verge of being blown out. The shots with the SP are at a different focal length, and slightly slower aperture (f/4). I think the first shot is blown out...certainly detail has been lost in over exposure. Both shots were in Av...and by my maths shot 1 is at least +1. Shot 1...f2.8, iso 400, 1/8000s Shot 2...f4.0, iso 200, 1/4000s This is not to say one lens is better than the other, just that the exposure is not equivalent between the shots. Cheers Dean

07-17-2013, 05:20 PM	#6
Tighelander Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: San Diego Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 228 Original Poster	Well both are at the widest aperture of each lens, and both are near the center of the frame. The lens didn't look abused. It focused quickly and silently. I've read nothing but good reviews for the lens. I felt rushed when taking the photos, maybe it's some error on my part. I was expecting it to be much sharper than the SP since it's not only a Pentax, but a "digital" lens. Maybe a better comparison would have been to use an auto-focus lens, like the old Pentax AF kit lens that I have, I think its the 28-80mm f/3.5 - 4.5

07-17-2013, 05:41 PM	#7
Tighelander Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: San Diego Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 228 Original Poster	Originally posted by Dean Bradshaw I think the first shot is blown out...certainly detail has been lost in over exposure. Both shots were in Av...and by my maths shot 1 is at least +1. Shot 1...f2.8, iso 400, 1/8000s Shot 2...f4.0, iso 200, 1/4000s This is not to say one lens is better than the other, just that the exposure is not equivalent between the shots. Cheers Dean Good point; I didn't think about the numbers like that.

07-17-2013, 07:17 PM	#8
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	How's the SP perform at 2.8? I guess not at all. In low light, the DA16-50 will be a stop lower in ISO. Not a big deal at 200 vs 400, but a huge deal at 6400 vs 12800! That's when I want a large aperture lens. Either that, or I use the larger aperture for a shallower DOF. In this case, I'm usually focused pretty close. Again, not as possible on the slower lens. In my experience, shooting at large apertures in bright light at medium or far distance delivers mediocre results. The focus could be anywhere, the DOF isn't what you expect it to be, there are a lot of internal reflections in the lens due to the larger aperture, contrast suffers and make the lens look soft. This, added to the fact that the shot is over exposed, lead me to recommend you ignore the results of the shot you posted. Lens designers don't expect you to take bright-light landscapes at f2.8, because that's an f11 shot, not an f2.8 shot. Maybe take a friend along, go find some shade, and shoot a couple of portraits. Keep ISO the same. Use the hood. You should get a much better comparison. My guess is in the right lighting, with an appropriate subject for f2.8, you'll find it works much better.

07-17-2013, 07:38 PM	#9
Tighelander Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: San Diego Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 228 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kozlok Keep ISO the same. Use the hood. You should get a much better comparison. It had the hood on it. Thanks for the advice. I think I'll go back, and try it out again on Friday.

07-25-2013, 08:12 PM	#10
Maxington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 255	I've never been that impressed with my DA* 16-50 at f2.8, but it shines when stopped down a bit. It's ok at f2.8, but nothing amazing, it's good to have that speed when you need it though.

07-25-2013, 09:45 PM	#11
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by Maxington I've never been that impressed with my DA* 16-50 at f2.8, but it shines when stopped down a bit. True. The lens is great at f/4. (Note: If you select MTF program line, the camera defaults f/4 as the sharpest aperture) Originally posted by Maxington It's ok at f2.8, but nothing amazing, it's good to have that speed when you need it though. Well, at least you are always making use of the f/2.8 each time you look through the viewfinder. This also makes a difference in any other lighting than good.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search