Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-28-2008, 08:19 PM   #16
LSR
Junior Member
LSR's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Merida
Posts: 37
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
My opinion agrees with yours!
As does mine! I love my DA* 16-50.

On a side note, in the store I tested the Pentax 16-45mm against the DA* 16-50mm (after returning the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 due to poor focusing and an obvious chip on the inside of the rear element). The 16-45 seemed a fantastic lens to me for the money, but the 16-50 seemed to have better colour reproduction off the shelf, the SDM and weather seals made me buy it on top of that.

If I didn't have the extra $$ to spend I would have been more happy with the Pentax 16-45mm than the Tamron 17-50 to be honest. While I'm the first to admit that it sure is nice to have a F2.8 lens, the Pentax 16-45mm F4 seems to get overlooked too often when it has a lot to offer for the money. Just my opinion though.

08-28-2008, 09:34 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
I spent a lot of time comparing lenses to mount on my K20d. I really wanted to do the best I could with my money. That said, I was impressed with the Da 16-50mm since it offered weather sealing; I do a lot of hiking, year round in the mountains of New England. In fact, though the reasons are too numerous to list here, one reason for buying the K20 is because it can handle rain and dust.

I ruled out the Pentax 16-45, and not just because it was a relatively slow lens. I also ruled out the Sigma 17-70mm because it lacked constant 2.8 speed. Then, though harder to decide, I ruled out the Sigma 18-50mm because its owners did not hold it in the highest esteem—on the whole. When I came to comparing the Pentax 16-50mm with the Tamron 17-50mm, the Penny had the immediate edge because it is sealed. But the more I read, the more the Tammy seemed the logical choice. In the “professional” reviews, and in the owners’ reviews, the Tammy came highly recommended. It was much harder to find reviews by owners of the Penny, but there were “professional” reviews. But the reviews did not at all rate the Penny higher than the Tammy. If anything, like Pentax Poke has said and shown here, the Tammy had the edge.

Now, though I am surprised by just how much of an edge this post reveals, I am not surprised to hear anyone say the Tammy outperforms the Penny. So it seemed senseless to select the Penny and pay $300 more for a lens that was not as good, even though it did offer weather sealing. I bought the Tammy and am happy.
08-28-2008, 09:36 PM   #18
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ex Finn. Quote
I think this is as good as the DA*16-50 gets?

No way!. Can not be! Not this bad, 3 times a round!.(yes, that does look way bad).
I am using a 16-50, about 3 weeks old from B&H, takes my breath away with it`s sharpness and color rendering. I would put it right in with 12-24 and 50 1:1.7 in the
" output is pleasing to the eye" gategory.
Just my opinion, don`t have to agree with it.

Cheers Mike.
I don't doubt you, but what would all of you do in my position? This is 3 lenses now. The first one from Amazon, and the next two from B&H. The sad thing is that the pictures I posted here (that you agree look bad) are the best of the 3! That is why I finally thought I had a good one.

Maybe I should just be happy with my excellent Tamron, get my B&H credit, and spend it on something indulgent...I don't have a ltd. lens yet.
08-28-2008, 10:56 PM   #19
Veteran Member
lbam's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 443
I wonder how the bokeh compares with the Pentax and the Tammy, maybe this is somewhere that the the Pentax can be better? (aprt from being slightly wider, and sealed).

(I have the Tamron)

08-29-2008, 02:42 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Believe it or not, this is my third DA*16-50 copy, and it is by FAR better than the other two that I had. The first one was decentered. The second one was so bad that all around the edge of the field of view, you would see double. littlelaker said it made him "dizzy." This lens is much better than my other two.
I will vouch for this, PentaxPoke's last copy was responsible for the worst image I've ever seen.
I really did feel dizzy with the image, and thought that something had suddenly gone wrong with my eyes
Then I scrolled down, and saw that it was the image.




PentaxPoke,
Although that copy is around 1000x better than your last copy I'm another one whom isn't impressed with it.
I've seen several copies with much better IQ, so I know that there's something wrong with it.

If I was you I'd do like you mentioned, and send it back for a refund.

I really wish that I could help you get a better copy, but there's nothing that I can do.

At this point I personally feel that Pentax should just scrap that lens design, and talk to Tamron about using a Pentax coating and re-badging the 17-50 f2.8
I don't know if Tamron can weather seal it, but I know they're quality control is top notch.

Last edited by little laker; 08-29-2008 at 02:50 AM.
08-29-2008, 03:17 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,065
No chance that you would have a store in your area, that carries the 16-50 in stock. "Nearby" Ritz perhaps?.
After 3 bad lenses, a look,see, feel and" I believe it when I see it", would be the only way for me to purchase one more.

Cheers.
Mike.

P.S. All of us with good copies appreciate your efforts to filter out all those bad ones
08-29-2008, 05:37 AM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 91
After my experience I believe it is less an issue of "bad copies" and more an issue of compatible lens to camera parameters. I went through two copies. The second I sent to Pentax. They "fixed" it but it was still bad. Then I sent in the camera body with the lens and now it's perfect.
08-29-2008, 06:34 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
I don't doubt you, but what would all of you do in my position? This is 3 lenses now. The first one from Amazon, and the next two from B&H. The sad thing is that the pictures I posted here (that you agree look bad) are the best of the 3! That is why I finally thought I had a good one.

Maybe I should just be happy with my excellent Tamron, get my B&H credit, and spend it on something indulgent...I don't have a ltd. lens yet.

If I was in your position, having tried 3 different copies and none seemed to be of the quality you'd expect from a DA* lens, I would be ending my search. As a matter of fact, the more I read and hear about the QC issues with this lens, I have ruled it out as a choice for a future lens for my needs.

Jason

08-29-2008, 06:37 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
thanks for the tests PentaxPoke. i think i will check this lens out this weekend
08-29-2008, 06:54 AM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Illinois, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 55
While I also noted in all 3 of the Photozone reviews of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 review the comments regarding the field curvature, the initial comparison photos in this thread seem to bear out the overall higher off axis IQ of the Tamron.

Compared to having the right 25% of the DA*16-50 FOV being soft (at least this is the case for my 3rd and best copy so far), I doubt that the field curvature of the Tamron would be drastically worse than the DA*. While I was sincerely looking forward to having the benefit of the dust/weathersealed DA* lens, looks like it will not be the case.
08-29-2008, 07:51 AM   #26
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
I ruled out the Sigma 18-50mm
v1 or v2 ("macro") ?
08-29-2008, 07:56 AM   #27
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by little laker Quote
At this point I personally feel that Pentax should just scrap that lens design, and talk to Tamron about using a Pentax coating and re-badging the 17-50 f2.8
I don't know if Tamron can weather seal it, but I know they're quality control is top notch.
It couldn't be a DA*: Not weather sealed, but also no SDM, no quick shift focus.

I spent some time with a 16-50mm on a K20D and my K100D Super, along with three primes (FA50, DA35 Macro, DA21). The 16-50 was noticeably softer at wide apertures than the primes (of course), but it also underexposed a bit compared to the primes on both cameras. Is underexposure peculiar to the copy I tested?
08-29-2008, 08:09 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CT / NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by rogerstg Quote
After my experience I believe it is less an issue of "bad copies" and more an issue of compatible lens to camera parameters. I went through two copies. The second I sent to Pentax. They "fixed" it but it was still bad. Then I sent in the camera body with the lens and now it's perfect.
Interesting point.
08-29-2008, 08:49 AM   #29
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
...but it also underexposed a bit compared to the primes on both cameras. Is underexposure peculiar to the copy I tested?
Interesting. This was the case with all 3 of the DA*16-50's I had. Usually I have my EVset to +1/2 since I like to expose a bit to the right, but with these lenses I had to use EV+1, so I guess my experience is consistent with yours.
08-29-2008, 09:26 AM   #30
Veteran Member
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 756
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Some have read that I finally got a good copy of a DA*16-50. I thought I would test my observation that the DA* is not as sharp across the field of view as the Tamron 17-50. (This is consistent with the Photozone observation.) Here is the setup:

Tamron 17-50 at f2.8
Pentax DA*16-50 at f/5.6
As said above, there are quite a bit of discrepancies in the test shots. I would have done both of the same subject the same time and at F4 & F8 and at 20mm & 45mm. That is just me.


Daniel
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
center, crops, da*, da*16-50, edge, f5.6, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Machinery Formula D "Throwdown" Seattle, Wa Gaelen Post Your Photos! 3 07-12-2010 07:32 PM
Misc Too Addicting - Round 2 boodiespost Post Your Photos! 6 12-14-2009 08:26 PM
Round and round and round brkl Post Your Photos! 6 04-20-2009 11:19 AM
Tamron 17-50 vs DA*16-50 Throwdown! PentaxPoke Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 40 06-27-2008 08:23 AM
Best All Round Lens? benjikan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 45 04-29-2007 08:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top