[tibbitts]

I just got a copy of the lens yesterday. It's going back because it appears slightly - and I admit slightly - decentered at the long end. So I'll try another copy. This seems more of an issue up close, like with an 8.5x11 test chart, but there it's pretty clear. I can flip the camera over and the better edge performance moves from the one side to the other. Performance at the wide end seems pretty good. On the other hand all I have for testing is 16mp with an AA filter, so I'm thinking the differences would be more on 24mp without one. I'm partly considering this lens due to my AF problems with the Tamron 17-50 (another thread), but, at least with the copies I've had, the 16-85 just isn't in the same league. It's better than the other wide zooms I've had (16-45, the kit 18-55, and some earlier FF zooms like the 28-105 Tamron/Pentax), but the 17-50 sets a fairly high bar by my standards (unless you count the curved focus plane, which is definitely a problem for some real-world applications.) Using the same test chart both sides of the Tamron appear very similar to me and beat the better side of the 16-85, but not by nearly as much as they beat the worse side.

The decentering thing just seems to be something Pentax can't get under control. Really if they want to keep selling higher and higher mp bodies, they must realize that people are going to notice issues like this more easily. At least this lens was close, unlike some truly horrible copies of the 55-300 I've tried.

[colonel00]

If you have examples of your tests, I'd be interested to see them.

[tibbitts]

If you have examples of your tests, I'd be interested to see them.

Here.The centers were so close between all three it didn't matter to me so I won't post those.

[Barso]

A couple from yesterday on my new K-S1 paired with the 16-85

IMGP0215 new on Flickr

IMGP0209 new on Flickr

[jeffshaddix]

Here.The centers were so close between all three it didn't matter to me so I won't post those.

Yeah that's what my first one looked like. The second was much better - too bad for the AF issue.

[tibbitts]

Yeah that's what my first one looked like. The second was much better - too bad for the AF issue.

Well the results are in on copy #2, and... I'm not sure what to do. It's mostly better than copy #1 in "real life" use, except on the left side at 24mm (I tested 16,24,50, and 85.) This new copy holds up pretty well at 24mm until it gets to about the last 5% of the left side of the frame, where resolution totally nosedives. Usually lenses seem to gradually lose resolution as you near a corner or edge, but this one hold up well... until it doesn't. On the resolution test target, where the original was soft on the right side at longer focal lengths, this one is soft in the lower right and upper left. So really the performance seems to vary not just with focal length but with focusing distance.

Overall the 16-85 is a very versatile lens and performs a lot better than most of my other zooms. In the center 2/3rd of the field it's really very good. I'm not sure I'll do better than this current copy, unless maybe I try dozens. I really wish Pentax would hire somebody to test these lenses so we didn't have to.

[mee]

I wonder what B&H is doing with the return copies? I thought, since they had been bought once and in a customer's hands, they couldn't list them as brand new. Yet I don't see them in the used section (thankfully) but that still leaves me wondering if they are either returning them to Ricoh with the complaint on each or are just relisting them as new?

And, if Ricoh is getting them, what are they then doing with these lenses? giving them the once over saying 'looks good to me' and reshipping as new? Correcting the issues before shipping out as new? parting ? QC tests? Sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

[jeffshaddix]

Well the results are in on copy #2, and... I'm not sure what to do. It's mostly better than copy #1 in "real life" use, except on the left side at 24mm (I tested 16,24,50, and 85.) This new copy holds up pretty well at 24mm until it gets to about the last 5% of the left side of the frame, where resolution totally nosedives. Usually lenses seem to gradually lose resolution as you near a corner or edge, but this one hold up well... until it doesn't. On the resolution test target, where the original was soft on the right side at longer focal lengths, this one is soft in the lower right and upper left. So really the performance seems to vary not just with focal length but with focusing distance.

Overall the 16-85 is a very versatile lens and performs a lot better than most of my other zooms. In the center 2/3rd of the field it's really very good. I'm not sure I'll do better than this current copy, unless maybe I try dozens. I really wish Pentax would hire somebody to test these lenses so we didn't have to.

Well to each their own. The main factors I consider are (in order): "is it fun to use?", "will the lens (even with its flaws) significantly improve the chances of acquiring print-worthy photographs?", "will the lens hold its utility in my kit?", "will the lens hold its value enough on the used market (i.e. the difference was worth the impact received)?". Each question is loaded with nuance. My last copy of this lens struck the bell for the first one, mostly the second, possibly the third, and likely not the fourth considering the defect. It was a hard choice to send it back, but I'd rather have a samyang 135/2 that I know will strike all four.

---------- Post added 04-13-16 at 03:55 AM ----------

I wonder what B&H is doing with the return copies? I thought, since they had been bought once and in a customer's hands, they couldn't list them as brand new. Yet I don't see them in the used section (thankfully) but that still leaves me wondering if they are either returning them to Ricoh with the complaint on each or are just relisting them as new?

And, if Ricoh is getting them, what are they then doing with these lenses? giving them the once over saying 'looks good to me' and reshipping as new? Correcting the issues before shipping out as new? parting ? QC tests? Sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

Haha yes this! I've wondered the same many times, and noticed after returning two copies of the DA 60-250 that two used copies appeared in the used section. I hope it's coincidence.

The flier in the box says to not return to seller, but I imagine it's more painful (and perhaps more impactful) if B&H starts asking why they can't seem to get this right. *Ducks*

[clackers]

I wonder what B&H is doing with the return copies? I thought, since they had been bought once and in a customer's hands, they couldn't list them as brand new. Yet I don't see them in the used section (thankfully) but that still leaves me wondering if they are either returning them to Ricoh with the complaint on each or are just relisting them as new?

And, if Ricoh is getting them, what are they then doing with these lenses? giving them the once over saying 'looks good to me' and reshipping as new? Correcting the issues before shipping out as new? parting ? QC tests? Sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

Dunno what any of the companies do.

Sigma actually sell refurbished lenses. B&H have a category like that too, distinct from 'Used.'

[timb64]

Just a reminder that the title of this thread is Show what the lens can do.If you are not going to post pictures taken with the defective lens I would request you keep it on topic

[tibbitts]

Just a reminder that the title of this thread is Show what the lens can do.If you are not going to post pictures taken with the defective lens I would request you keep it on topic

I added another image to the google drive folder, above: 2nd-16mm.jpg

https://drive.google.com/a/paultibbitts.com/folderview?id=0B6EBzgJXUw28ZGQxR...k&usp=sharing#


Compare the printing at the top and bottom of the frame, particularly the top left. 26mm.

I realize that my testing isn't scientifically controlled etc., but I'm only posting this as one example of what every other test showed. Brick walls, etc. The lower focal lengths, particularly in the mid-20s, are just weak on that one edge and that corner in particular. If it was just one test I'd redo it using some other subject, etc. The center and the other edge is sharp, meaning focus has to be close. If this was my Tamron, the issue would be that the edges don't focus at the same distance as the edges, so you have to stop it down. And it would be just as bad as the worst corner here at, say, f4. But both sides would have the same blurry, fuzzy image.

I asked Pentax and the official word is that if you can tell a difference between any edge and corner and another... send it back. I wouldn't hold a lens to that high a standard, but really, if the lens can do what it can do at the bottom of this example, I want that all across the frame. Honestly, I'd settle for a little less resolution than that at the bottom; I just think it should be consistent. Maybe not if I compare using some future-generation 200mp body, but I've got 16mp and and AA filter and I can see this.

This really is a very, very good lens by my standards, on one side or the other at every focal length, and in the middle 2/3rds of the frame at every focal length. But this copy is going back too. I'd really like Pentax to address this seriously and tell us what we should expect. I wanted to send them examples but they weren't interested. I wouldn't even mind buying one and sending it in to be fixed if they could explain to me exactly how they're going to fix it and how they're going to test it and to what standards. With my Sigma I got nowhere with centering issues - what was good enough to them just wasn't even close to me (it was twice as bad or more than either of these copies.)

Incidentally I have bought Pentax lenses - and, well, if you count the Tokina 10-17 as Pentax or whatever - and been happy with the first copy I've gotten. In one case I tested a new Pentax lens I'd bought against another copy and my new one was worse, but I kept it anyway, because it was so close (and swapping for the other one would have had other issues.) So it's not like I won't accept some slight variations. I just don't think this is a slight variation.

[mee]

Yet YOU asked

What are people's thoughts and any images you can share would be appreciated.

We are providing thoughts just as you requested.

I suspect the ones not returned with a reason are stuck in the used section if they've been obviously handled. But I wonder if the ones that 'look' clean/unused are just restocked as new (even though that's a no-no)?

It would be interesting to record serial numbers of lenses returned with reasons returned and then post them here. Maybe we can get an idea of where these lenses are going and the best outlet (if possible) of buying a solid working copy (should someone run across those particular lenses at a later date). I sure wouldn't want to play the test and swap game.. and this lens especially seems to be one where that game is played more frequently than other lenses.

[northcoastgreg]

Reflections on some old buildings in Eureka, CA:

[timb64]

Yet YOU asked

We are providing thoughts just as you requested.

I suspect the ones not returned with a reason are stuck in the used section if they've been obviously handled. But I wonder if the ones that 'look' clean/unused are just restocked as new (even though that's a no-no)?

It would be interesting to record serial numbers of lenses returned with reasons returned and then post them here. Maybe we can get an idea of where these lenses are going and the best outlet (if possible) of buying a solid working copy (should someone run across those particular lenses at a later date). I sure wouldn't want to play the test and swap game.. and this lens especially seems to be one where that game is played more frequently than other lenses.

If your going to get pedantic I requested thoughts AND imagesBut agree the issue of rogue lenses being recycled needs addressing.

[tibbitts]

If your going to get pedantic I requested thoughts AND imagesBut agree the issue of rogue lenses being recycled needs addressing.

I asked B&H and they said they return lenses returned to them as defective to the manufacturer. I'm not sure if "not good enough for me" qualifies as defective.

I hate to return a lens like these 16-85s as defective, because there are people who would be happy with them. So they aren't really defective, yet clearly not what they were designed to be capable of, either.

I never knew there was such a thing as decentering in the film era, but made medium-large prints where there was no discernible difference in performance in the edges/corners. Of course the centers were a little sharper than the edges, but everyone expected that. We didn't have 16-85mm lenses then, but I did have a couple of more modest zooms.