[ogl]

If you get good copy of 16-50, it will be cool. Rather good zoom.

[Nicolas06]

The 16-50/2.8 is probably the most flare prone lens Pentax has ever produced. I would say it is useless if the sun is in the frame or even near it.....

Don't really get the point... That's true an f/2.8 zoom will flare more than a prime with only few optical elements. But for many occasion this will be just no problem. And if later own that really bad, buy a DA35 f/2.4 plastic wonder and the problem is solved.

Anyway the poster brought a 16-50... no really interrested to dismiss it now.

[Pål Jensen]

Don't really get the point... That's true an f/2.8 zoom will flare more than a prime with only few optical elements. But for many occasion this will be just no problem. And if later own that really bad, buy a DA35 f/2.4 plastic wonder and the problem is solved.

Anyway the poster brought a 16-50... no really interrested to dismiss it now.

We are talking about zoom lenses, not primes. The 16-50 flares spectacularly for a zoom lens; more than any of Pentax fish-eye lenses. The 20-40 is reportedly excellent when it comes to flare.
The point is obvious. For outdoor use the 16-50 is almost useless.

Unfortunately I've deleted the image I took a couple of weeks ago where the sun wasn't even in the frame. It is almost as bad.

[Rondec]

It really isn't that bad, Pal. I'm convinced there was dirt on your front element. I shoot toward the sun a lot. And yes, it is a lot more prone to flare than a prime like the DA 15 or DA 40, but if you partially obstruct the sun with something, than it is more than usable.

[Nicolas06]

We are talking about zoom lenses, not primes. The 16-50 flares spectacularly for a zoom lens; more than any of Pentax fish-eye lenses. The 20-40 is reportedly excellent when it comes to flare.
The point is obvious. For outdoor use the 16-50 is almost useless.

Unfortunately I've deleted the image I took a couple of weeks ago where the sun wasn't even in the frame. It is almost as bad.

The more you insist the more you are impolite to the poster that choosed the 16-50 anyway and make it look like it was bad move to do so.

Maybe you get happy saying that this 16-50 would flare badly and using exagerated terms like useless, but I don't see what it really give here. For me a photographer knowing a little its gear and how it works would be able to avoid the problem most of the case. Example of Rondec show it. You example wasn't even properly focussed. More even if the image was flare free and technically perfect, it would still be a boring image. The rondec image on contrary are really interresting.

This 16-50 is a very good lens with good colors, good rendering that give pleasing photos but you can't refrain yourself to bash it.

And for thoses after ultimate flare resistance... Buy a DA15 or DA35 plastic wonder and stop complaining.

[Driline]

We are talking about zoom lenses, not primes. The 16-50 flares spectacularly for a zoom lens; more than any of Pentax fish-eye lenses. The 20-40 is reportedly excellent when it comes to flare.
The point is obvious. For outdoor use the 16-50 is almost useless.

Unfortunately I've deleted the image I took a couple of weeks ago where the sun wasn't even in the frame. It is almost as bad.

That's good to know. I'll never take my DA*16-50 ever outdoors again

[Pål Jensen]

The more you insist the more you are impolite to the poster that choosed the 16-50 anyway and make it look like it was bad move to do so.

Maybe you get happy saying that this 16-50 would flare badly and using exagerated terms like useless, but I don't see what it really give here. For me a photographer knowing a little its gear and how it works would be able to avoid the problem most of the case. Example of Rondec show it. You example wasn't even properly focussed.

This 16-50 is a very good lens with good colors, good rendering that give pleasing photos but you can't refrain yourself to bash it.

And for thos after ultimate flare resistance... Buy a DA15 or DA35 plastic wonder and stop complaining.

Impolite to say the lens flares a lot and show it with an image in a thread asking about this lens? Give me a break.
It has nothing to do with the original posters choices. This is a discussion forum and this is of interest to anyone who consider these two lenses.
The image is properly focused (it was uploaded years ago when the images for some reason turned out fuzzy when upploaded). It is shot at F:22 to show what the flare looks like when it turns the reflections closer to in-focus. I noticed that the images toitally lacked contrast and this is the reason. At wider aperture the reflections smears out and produce low contrast images, something that is apparent in all the images posted above. The low contrast is due to excessive flare.
This lens is not even close to Pentax SMC flare standards and are probably closer to what users of cheap third party lenses are used to.
Theres no dirt on the lens.

Of course it can be used to great advantages but I expect more of a Pentax lens when it comes to flare and it certainly isn't up to "*" standards. I will replace it with the 15 and the 20-40.

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 09-02-2014 at 02:00 PM.

[Wakaas]

Thanks for your concern guys. But iam really happy with 16-50mm. Iam using it mostly indoors. Even if it flares, it doesn't bother me. I needed a fast aperture. That's y I chose it over 20-40mm.
Regards

[lytrytyr]

For the record, here's a link to Optyczne's flare tests on the DA*16-50.
(Unfortunately, it seems there's no English equivalent on Lenstip):

Test Pentax smc DA* 16-50 mm f/2.8 AL ED IF SDM - Odblaski - Test obiektywu - Optyczne.pl

[DarCam]

I too have been mulling this decision between the 16-50 and the 20-40. The most important thing is the weather sealing, at least for me. I have my k5IIs and now that I have the opportunity to pair it with a WR lens, I'm looking at these two lenses. I have a 50mm M f1.7 prime that I absolutely love, and a 135mm f.2.8 but no weather sealed lenses that I would take outside on a muggy, humid Florida day.


Pricewise, both are at the $900-$1000 range, so its pretty negligible, but the focal length and size of each lens is starkly different. I don't know which one would suit me best as the main reason for a purchase of one of these lenses is for a Jack-of-all-trades piece of glass when I don't feel like carrying a lot of gear and it involves outdoor activities.


I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm suffering from analysis paralysis. Help!!

[lytrytyr]

I too have been mulling this decision between the 16-50 and the 20-40. The most important thing is the weather sealing, at least for me. I have my k5IIs and now that I have the opportunity to pair it with a WR lens, I'm looking at these two lenses. I have a 50mm M f1.7 prime that I absolutely love, and a 135mm f.2.8 but no weather sealed lenses that I would take outside on a muggy, humid Florida day.


Pricewise, both are at the $900-$1000 range, so its pretty negligible, but the focal length and size of each lens is starkly different. I don't know which one would suit me best as the main reason for a purchase of one of these lenses is for a Jack-of-all-trades piece of glass when I don't feel like carrying a lot of gear and it involves outdoor activities.


I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm suffering from analysis paralysis. Help!!

Do you like to take photographs against the light?
Do you want a smaller, more portable lens?
If so, then I'd recommend the DA 20-40.
If those factors aren't important,
and you want the bigger zoom range in a WR lens,
then the DA*16-50 may be a better choice for you.

Myself, I have the DA 20-40 for the rendering and other reasons,
and a Tamron 17-50 for a bigger range or "event" lens.

The Pentax lenses had price drops recently that expired September 8,
but there may be a similar opportunity for Black Friday.