[little laker]

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?

Tamron makes the 17 - 50 with a built in motor drive for the Nikon mount, so I can't see why they can't do the same in a Pentax mount.
Looking at them physically the 2 mounts don't have all that many differences.
Canon is way off

It's the weather sealing that I'm un-sure about. But they might be able to accomplish that.

[augustmoon]

Funny thing for me, was that I, after reading all the 16-50 posts in this and other forums, was so afraid to buy the 16-50, I bought the Tamron 17-50. It was soft at all FL and even stopped down, (it wasn't FF or BF), so I returned the Tamron 17-50 #1, bought a second Tamron 17-50, which was better in the center but not in the corners, so, then took that back for a third Tamron 17-50, still a bit soft.

On a whim, on my trip back to see if I could swap out my 3rd copy of the Tamron 17-50 for perhaps a 4th copy, They unboxed and I snapped on the Pentax 16-50, nice, very nice, I thought to my self and bought it. Wow, now I know that I had 3 Tamron 17-50 copies in a row that performed poorly for me, but the Pentax 16-50 I bought was sharper at all FL and at 2.8 both center and corner.

Like I mentioned in other posts, felt really silly and foolish that I let all the forum stuff about bad copies of this lens stop me from giving it at least a try out sooner. Since then, my recommendation to others who bring it up, is to check out this lens locally, obtain permission to return or swap it out if you are unhappy with the copy you buy, and if time is no concern, that this lens (a good copy) is so worth it, even if you have to send it in to Pentax (hey, winter is coming anyway).

Plus mounted on the K20D, I'm not afraid to take this combo to the beach.

I think, especially with these two makes, a lot of copy variation exists from one to another.

Now this lens does have a curved field of focus, so I know a lot of people like to buy this lens (perhaps other lenses?) to photograph newspapers and brick walls, especially at 16mm and at 2.8. ( I think that most of the images posted of newspapers and brick walls are actually with this particular lens...)

I would say that this is not a good newspaper or brick wall lens. I would say that there are much better choices of lens to photograph brick walls with. Best to use a flatter field lens of a longer focal length for a bit farther away, perhaps a macro if you really can't back up that much. For newspapers I suggest a good, decent flatbed or drum scanner, or a macro lens on a copy stand.

[felix68]

PentaxPoke,

Is that a new CEAT building? I spent a year in the Architecture program at OSU and I didn't have a nice building like that to go to class in... Your pics bring me back to the early '90s!

Russell

Edit: BTW, with no Limiteds, I would highly recommend the FA31 but you probably already know that!

[vinzer]

So there are still bad copies rolling off the Pentax plant? I thought they sorted that out some time back? That's sad to hear.

[deejjjaaaa]

Wow, now I know that I had 3 Tamron 17-50 copies in a row that performed poorly for me, but the Pentax 16-50 I bought was sharper at all FL and at 2.8 both center and corner.

+

I would say that there are much better choices of lens to photograph brick walls with. Best to use a flatter field lens of a longer focal length for a bit farther away, perhaps a macro if you really can't back up that much. For newspapers I suggest a good, decent flatbed or drum scanner, or a macro lens on a copy stand.

so what you were using to test your tamrons vs your pentax ? not newspapers and not brickwals... pimples ?

[Imagination4]

Imagination,
Have you decided what you are going to do yet? I am just about to look for $700 worth of gear at B&H...

After taking and reviewing some more outdoor photos, I returned my third DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 for a refund today. If only the right side IQ would have mirrored the left side, I would have been quite happy with it (as I value the dust and weather proofing). The contrast and color was superb, and the center and the vast majority of the left side sharpness was excellent.

I'm going to give the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a try now. The portions of the image from your Tammy that you had initially posted has piqued my interest and if I can obtain one like that, then I'd also save about $300.

[Imagination4]

It couldn't be a DA*: Not weather sealed, but also no SDM, no quick shift focus.

These are non-issues. The Tokina version of the 16-50mm f/2.8 does not have an internal motor and is not weather sealed - so Pentax could make a DA* version of the Tamron (if they wanted to and Tamron and Hoya came to terms). Pentax already has had dealings with Tamron to produce the Pentax badged DA 18-250mm zoom anyway.

[Imagination4]

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?

My third copy would expose properly for the most part, but would occassionally under-expose by about 1/2 stop, when stopped down to f/5.6 or slower.

[audiobomber]

These are non-issues. The Tokina version of the 16-50mm f/2.8 does not have an internal motor and is not weather sealed - so Pentax could make a DA* version of the Tamron (if they wanted to and Tamron and Hoya came to terms). Pentax already has had dealings with Tamron to produce the Pentax badged DA 18-250mm zoom anyway.

What about quick-shift? The 18-250 doesn't have it, but it's not a DA* lens.

[Imagination4]

On a whim, on my trip back to see if I could swap out my 3rd copy of the Tamron 17-50 for perhaps a 4th copy, They unboxed and I snapped on the Pentax 16-50, nice, very nice, I thought to my self and bought it. Wow, now I know that I had 3 Tamron 17-50 copies in a row that performed poorly for me, but the Pentax 16-50 I bought was sharper at all FL and at 2.8 both center and corner.

Now this lens does have a curved field of focus, so I know a lot of people like to buy this lens (perhaps other lenses?) to photograph newspapers and brick walls, especially at 16mm and at 2.8. ( I think that most of the images posted of newspapers and brick walls are actually with this particular lens...)

I would say that this is not a good newspaper or brick wall lens.

Glad you manage what I was not able to - a good copy of the DA* 16-50mm.

I took my share of brick walls and newspaper photos, as well as a variety of landscapes and trees. Going in, I was well aware of the significantly poorer edge/border IQ of the DA* lens, and in fact the left half behaved overall in line with my expectations. The left edge had poorer IQ than the center, but as the lens was stopped down and/or the f.l. increased from 16mm, the amount of the poorer IQ at the left edge decreased to a narrorer band.

However, the right 25% of the image never cleared up. Increasing the f.l. had a negligible effect on the outer half of the right side. While stopping the lens down did reduce the amount of blur/unsharpness some on the right, it never decreased the actual area/extent of the blur - reducing the band of the blur to a narrorer boarder to the right (as was the case on the left side). So, for instance, if I shot a portrait with the right side up, the person's face was never really sharp (even stopped down and at 35mm or 50mm). However, it I took a portrait with the left side up, then the person's face was sharp.

I just wanted to make sure that I had at least a decent quality copy of the lens and then go out and enjoy taking photos, not perform QC for Pentax. What the brick walls, newspaper, and tree/leave images proved (to me) was that consistently across 3 lenses that the right side severely under-performed compared to the left side.

Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me. The third time's a charm - not this time. So a 4th try was out of the question. I'm not in or by NYC where I can spend a day, go thru boxes, and keep trying to find a good DA* 16-50mm. I just want a good quality lens that I can rely on.

[PentaxPoke]

Glad you manage what I was not able to - a good copy of the DA* 16-50mm.

I took my share of brick walls and newspaper photos, as well as a variety of landscapes and trees. Going in, I was well aware of the significantly poorer edge/border IQ of the DA* lens, and in fact the left half behaved overall in line with my expectations. The left edge had poorer IQ than the center, but as the lens was stopped down and/or the f.l. increased from 16mm, the amount of the poorer IQ at the left edge decreased to a narrorer band.

However, the right 25% of the image never cleared up. Increasing the f.l. had a negligible effect on the outer half of the right side. While stopping the lens down did reduce the amount of blur/unsharpness some on the right, it never decreased the actual area/extent of the blur - reducing the band of the blur to a narrorer boarder to the right (as was the case on the left side). So, for instance, if I shot a portrait with the right side up, the person's face was never really sharp (even stopped down and at 35mm or 50mm). However, it I took a portrait with the left side up, then the person's face was sharp.

I just wanted to make sure that I had at least a decent quality copy of the lens and then go out and enjoy taking photos, not perform QC for Pentax. What the brick walls, newspaper, and tree/leave images proved (to me) was that consistently across 3 lenses that the right side severely under-performed compared to the left side.

Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me. The third time's a charm - not this time. So a 4th try was out of the question. I'm not in or by NYC where I can spend a day, go thru boxes, and keep trying to find a good DA* 16-50mm. I just want a good quality lens that I can rely on.

I'm right there with you imag. I'm getting a little annoyed at some posters acting as if the problem doesn't exist, or questioning the "testing methods." If we can see a problem in all of our pictures, then the D@&$ "testing method" doesn't matter, does it? I am just as much a Pentax fan as anyone here, but there is a problem with this lens!

Now I just have to figure out what Pentax gear to spend my DA*16-50 credit on. 31 ltd? I have the 35. 77ltd? I have the DA*50-135 that is sharper at that focal length according to Photozone tests.

I could use some help on this decision. It will take my mind off my dissapointment over the DA*16-50...

[augustmoon]

Glad you manage what I was not able to - a good copy of the DA* 16-50mm.

However, the right 25% of the image never cleared up. Increasing the f.l. had a negligible effect on the outer half of the right side. While stopping the lens down did reduce the amount of blur/unsharpness some on the right, it never decreased the actual area/extent of the blur

That's how it was on 2 of my Tamron 17-50's

.. I just want a good quality lens that I can rely on.

Sigma 24-60? DA21 Ltd?

The only reason I sold my Sigma 24-60 f2.8 was that I wanted something a bit wider, and something sealed for the beach, but aside from that, it was a terrific and sharp lens. (and I don't generally care for Sigma at all, but this full-frame lens was really good, no PF, wasn't as yellow-y as some of theirs are, just nice, and it matched up nicely with the 50-135) There's currently another thread right now on this particular lens. It was great for landscapes and portraits and travel.

P.S. I was joking about the brick walls, it's a simple diagnostic for what you used it for and for focus and centering issues, I've just seen so many people buy lenses and shoot only brick walls and return it without ever trying them in the real world...

[little laker]

Now I just have to figure out what Pentax gear to spend my DA*16-50 credit on. 31 ltd? I have the 35. 77ltd? I have the DA*50-135 that is sharper at that focal length according to Photozone tests.

I don't see the 10 - 17 fisheye in your list, and it's a fun lens. So it's where I'd start

After that, could you use a few more batteries, and memory cards?

[little laker]

I don't generally care for Sigma at all, but this full-frame lens was really good, no PF, wasn't as yellow-y as some of theirs are, just nice, and it matched up nicely with the 50-135)

It's looking like Sigma's been sneaking into their factories, and improving upon some of their lenses. So their haters from the past might like their look now
Here's a link on it.

[PentaxPoke]

I don't see the 10 - 17 fisheye in your list, and it's a fun lens. So it's where I'd start

Interesting. I must admit I do not have as much experience shooting at the very wide end of the spectrum. If I wanted to do that, how would a fisheye be better than say the Sigma 10-20 that doesn't have the fisheye distortion, but has the same maximum angle of view? (Or maybe it doesn't. Doesn't fisheye imply 180deg FOV?) You can tell my experience does not lie at the wide end of the focal spectrum.