DA16-50 vs DA 50-135

LittleSwans · 06-19-2008, 10:18 PM

I have my heart set on the 16-50 until I read some of the reviews here that it's not all that it's crack up to be. Now I like the 50-135 however, I wanted to get the 16-50 now. The 50-135 will have to wait as it is so expensive.

I was hoping to get the 16-50 to replace the kit lens 18-55 as I like this focal length. I already have the 77 ltd so the 50-135 really can wait.

So tell me, is the 16-50 worth getting. I want my lens sharpity sharp like my 77.

Oh, I am also considering the 100 macro.

LK

**Canada_Rockies** · 06-19-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by LittleSwans

I have my heart set on the 16-50 until I read some of the reviews here that it's not all that it's crack up to be. Now I like the 50-135 however, I wanted to get the 16-50 now. The 50-135 will have to wait as it is so expensive.

I was hoping to get the 16-50 to replace the kit lens 18-55 as I like this focal length. I already have the 77 ltd so the 50-135 really can wait.

So tell me, is the 16-50 worth getting. I want my lens sharpity sharp like my 77.

LK

I like my 16-50 DA* very much indeed. There are a few shots on the Flickr site in my signature.

LittleSwans · 06-19-2008, 10:24 PM

You have the 12-24 which I have my eye on as well! Ok, of the 3 that you have, 12-24, 16-50 and 50-135, which is the sharpest and which is your fave. (yes, I know it all depends on what you shoot)?

selar · 06-19-2008, 10:42 PM

DA* 50-135 is in completely different league to DA* 16-50.

Buying a DA* 16-50 is like playing Russian Roulette, it is truly the DOG STAR, siriusly.

frank · 06-20-2008, 12:46 AM

It also depends on what camera you are using. As far as I know, the DA*1650 lens has more problem w/ K 10D than w/ K20D or K200D. If you are using a K20D or K200D camera, most likely you'd be happy w/ the lens

LittleSwans · 06-20-2008, 01:41 AM

I am still using the K10D. I'm waiting for the next model from K20D before I upgrade.

selar · 06-20-2008, 03:59 AM

LittleSwans,

I see you are in Australia, if you are considering buying 16-50 from US by mail order - Don't even think about it.

I have sent off for my Imternational Warranty from Pentax US, have never heard back.

LittleSwans · 06-20-2008, 04:25 AM

selar, are you saying that your copy was bad?

selar · 06-20-2008, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by LittleSwans

selar, are you saying that your copy was bad?

Certainly was and still is 7 months after buying. Still waiting for a good copy, ridiculous state of affairs from Pentax for a lens from its premier range.

LittleSwans · 06-20-2008, 05:36 AM

Oh dear.... back to the drawing board....

Andrew Faires · 06-20-2008, 01:41 PM

I was worried about getting the 16-50 before I got it. As a result, I went to a store where I could try it out before I bought it.

Overall, I'm very happy with it. I traded in my FA*24mm f/2.0 to help fun the 16-50 and based on some older shots, I think the 16-50 out-performed the 24mm overall (my impression). I also find the colour of the 16-50 more realistic or natural than the DA 14mm f/2.8. It was a worth-while investment for me. Add to that, the weather-sealing and it's become one of the more used lenses in my collection.

I'd recommend doing the same thing as I did....go to a store and try it out before you buy it. You'll likely pay more for it that way, but I consider the extra money I spent on mine doing that as a cheap premium to ensure I got a good sample.

For what it's worth, I'm still using a k10d.

I've been seriously considering the 50-135mm to replace my tamron 70-300. However, because I have that range covered nicely already, I haven't been in such a rush to do that. Perhaps when my tax refund comes in..........

**Ash** · 06-20-2008, 01:59 PM

Sad to hear selar,
I remember you talking about getting the 16-50 some time ago.
So you can't even be assured that a vendor will test their copies before sending them out overseas...

LittleSwans · 06-20-2008, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Andrew Faires

I'd recommend doing the same thing as I did....go to a store and try it out before you buy it. You'll likely pay more for it that way, but I consider the extra money I spent on mine doing that as a cheap premium to ensure I got a good sample.

The price difference between buying from a shop here in Aust. vs buying from B&H is approximately AUD 360.00!

Besides, I always find that trying it out in the shop doesn't help anyway. I need to download to the PC and view it big.

little laker · 06-20-2008, 05:19 PM

Personally I think that it's a foolish move to get that one lens through mailorder, unless the store is willing to test it ahead of time

However if it doesn't have to say Pentax on it and you can live without a motordrive. I was reading this thread about the Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8 and I was very impressed

here's a link to the Tamron page

LittleSwans · 06-21-2008, 03:52 AM

I might have to get the Tamron I think since it is such a gamble with the 16-50. I prefer Pentax. I have the Tamron 28-75 as I needed a zoom lens for my holidays and didn't want to carry my primes with me. That one is a bit of a hit and miss for me. I know that lots of members here rave about the Tamron 28-75 but I find that it is not as sharp as my 77ltd. So I am not too keen to get another Tamron if I can help it hence the 16-50. Can't say how disappointed I am that so many people have problems with it!

My plan was to get this 16-50 and sell my Tamron 28-75.

06-19-2008, 10:18 PM	#1
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98	*DA16-50 vs DA* 50-135** I have my heart set on the 16-50 until I read some of the reviews here that it's not all that it's crack up to be. Now I like the 50-135 however, I wanted to get the 16-50 now. The 50-135 will have to wait as it is so expensive. I was hoping to get the 16-50 to replace the kit lens 18-55 as I like this focal length. I already have the 77 ltd so the 50-135 really can wait. So tell me, is the 16-50 worth getting. I want my lens sharpity sharp like my 77. Oh, I am also considering the 100 macro. LK

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chinon 135 & Chinar 135 , Good Bad or Ugly	seacapt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	02-26-2010 09:03 PM
shoot out DA50-135 v.s. A50 A85 A100 A*135	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	12-11-2008 10:44 AM

06-19-2008, 10:19 PM	#2
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by LittleSwans I have my heart set on the 16-50 until I read some of the reviews here that it's not all that it's crack up to be. Now I like the 50-135 however, I wanted to get the 16-50 now. The 50-135 will have to wait as it is so expensive. I was hoping to get the 16-50 to replace the kit lens 18-55 as I like this focal length. I already have the 77 ltd so the 50-135 really can wait. So tell me, is the 16-50 worth getting. I want my lens sharpity sharp like my 77. LK I like my 16-50 DA* very much indeed. There are a few shots on the Flickr site in my signature.

06-19-2008, 10:24 PM	#3
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98 Original Poster	You have the 12-24 which I have my eye on as well! Ok, of the 3 that you have, 12-24, 16-50 and 50-135, which is the sharpest and which is your fave. (yes, I know it all depends on what you shoot)?

06-19-2008, 10:42 PM	#4
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	DA* 50-135 is in completely different league to DA* 16-50. Buying a DA* 16-50 is like playing Russian Roulette, it is truly the DOG STAR, siriusly.

06-20-2008, 12:46 AM	#5
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	It also depends on what camera you are using. As far as I know, the DA*1650 lens has more problem w/ K 10D than w/ K20D or K200D. If you are using a K20D or K200D camera, most likely you'd be happy w/ the lens

06-20-2008, 01:41 AM	#6
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98 Original Poster	I am still using the K10D. I'm waiting for the next model from K20D before I upgrade.

06-20-2008, 03:59 AM	#7
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	LittleSwans, I see you are in Australia, if you are considering buying 16-50 from US by mail order - Don't even think about it. I have sent off for my Imternational Warranty from Pentax US, have never heard back.

06-20-2008, 04:25 AM	#8
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98 Original Poster	selar, are you saying that your copy was bad?

06-20-2008, 05:33 AM	#9
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by LittleSwans selar, are you saying that your copy was bad? Certainly was and still is 7 months after buying. Still waiting for a good copy, ridiculous state of affairs from Pentax for a lens from its premier range.

06-20-2008, 05:36 AM	#10
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98 Original Poster	Oh dear.... back to the drawing board....

06-20-2008, 01:41 PM	#11
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	I was worried about getting the 16-50 before I got it. As a result, I went to a store where I could try it out before I bought it. Overall, I'm very happy with it. I traded in my FA*24mm f/2.0 to help fun the 16-50 and based on some older shots, I think the 16-50 out-performed the 24mm overall (my impression). I also find the colour of the 16-50 more realistic or natural than the DA 14mm f/2.8. It was a worth-while investment for me. Add to that, the weather-sealing and it's become one of the more used lenses in my collection. I'd recommend doing the same thing as I did....go to a store and try it out before you buy it. You'll likely pay more for it that way, but I consider the extra money I spent on mine doing that as a cheap premium to ensure I got a good sample. For what it's worth, I'm still using a k10d. I've been seriously considering the 50-135mm to replace my tamron 70-300. However, because I have that range covered nicely already, I haven't been in such a rush to do that. Perhaps when my tax refund comes in..........

06-20-2008, 01:59 PM	#12
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Sad to hear selar, I remember you talking about getting the 16-50 some time ago. So you can't even be assured that a vendor will test their copies before sending them out overseas...

06-20-2008, 04:41 PM	#13
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98 Original Poster	Originally posted by Andrew Faires I'd recommend doing the same thing as I did....go to a store and try it out before you buy it. You'll likely pay more for it that way, but I consider the extra money I spent on mine doing that as a cheap premium to ensure I got a good sample. The price difference between buying from a shop here in Aust. vs buying from B&H is approximately AUD 360.00! Besides, I always find that trying it out in the shop doesn't help anyway. I need to download to the PC and view it big.

06-20-2008, 05:19 PM	#14
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Personally I think that it's a foolish move to get that one lens through mailorder, unless the store is willing to test it ahead of time However if it doesn't have to say Pentax on it and you can live without a motordrive. I was reading this thread about the Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8 and I was very impressed here's a link to the Tamron page

06-21-2008, 03:52 AM	#15
LittleSwans Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 98 Original Poster	I might have to get the Tamron I think since it is such a gamble with the 16-50. I prefer Pentax. I have the Tamron 28-75 as I needed a zoom lens for my holidays and didn't want to carry my primes with me. That one is a bit of a hit and miss for me. I know that lots of members here rave about the Tamron 28-75 but I find that it is not as sharp as my 77ltd. So I am not too keen to get another Tamron if I can help it hence the 16-50. Can't say how disappointed I am that so many people have problems with it! My plan was to get this 16-50 and sell my Tamron 28-75.

DA*16-50 vs DA* 50-135

DA16-50 vs DA 50-135