[STARHUNTER94]

Good day everyone,

I reside in Canada. I am not a pro. I use a KP, and have just acquired a used 55-300 PLM (cleaning it up currently before some testing).


I have been saving for a good 2 years now and have been thinking about pulling the trigger on the new 16-50 PLM as a travel lens and this should pair well with the 55-300 for a 2 lens kit for travel (weight isn't an issue and laughable compared to the DFA 70-200 that I have come to love when not on the road). This would be it for me in terms of lens ownership for a long time (no further budget).


I have a dilemma however. I've been reading through every post I can on this lens and came across a few regarding auto-focus issues (sounds to be largely with the K3-III?), specifically being inconsistent depending on the AF point being used:

ref: Can someone check the accuracy/difference of all AF points in AF-S Select - PentaxForums.com
Pentax HD DA 16-50 PLM autofocus problem - PentaxForums.com

My questions to the world of Pentax:


1) Should I wait, assuming there is some sort of early adopter issues happening with the first batch of lenses (this might be silly, as it's been quite a while now)?

2) Is it possible that these are just isolated incidents and 99% of 16-50 PLM owners aren't posting because they are outside enjoying their lenses without issues (this is certainly the case in a lot of reviews of various products, you only hear the bad stuff).



I am aware that the KP focusing system is a little different, but it's the best camera body I will own for many years to come (until it falls apart essentially), however I'll only get one shot at this in terms of my budget and sometimes Pentax gear can be a pain in Canada to order / go back and forth with a distributor on warranty claims.


Sorry for such a long post, but I appreciate you taking the time to read it and any perspective you can offer me.

Have a nice day.

[StigVidar]

The problem you mention is only something I see when I use my 16-50 PLM on K-3 III. I don't see it on K-3 which has a similar AF system as KP, but not identical.

[mikesbike]

and 99% of 16-50 PLM owners aren't posting because they are outside enjoying their lenses without issues (this is certainly the case in a lot of reviews of various products, you only hear the bad stuff).

Seems to be the case. However, with a lens this new, there could be some production QC bugs that might need adjusting. It would appear that this is potentially a topnotch lens. Would like to hear from those owning it and reporting great results from it and the K-3 III when using the capabilities the design is meant to deliver- like burst shooting, focus tracking, etc. Too early as no test reviews have yet been done.

I am wondering what lens(es) you have been shooting with that cover this FL range? Since you have the DFA 70-200mm, it appears you have a definite interest in having the f/2.8 aperture. I am going to pass on the new lens, since I got a great closeout deal on the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM a couple of years ago. I like it very much, but I rarely do any burst shooting and fast-subject AF tracking. Most of my shots are with center-only AF pt. but when do activate the other AF pts, everything seems to work fine. Outstanding results on my KP. Therefore, I have no real need for the new lens or camera. I only need the f/2.8 at certain times, but when I do need it, I bring out this Sigma lens and if needed, accompanied by my long-time excellent friend the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 which I love. Otherwise, I often just have my DA 20-40mm Ltd on the camera, or DA 18-135mm if I need more FL versatility.

[STARHUNTER94]

Thank you (all) so far for your responses.

Currently I also have an 18-135 that I'm looking to sell (help fund something new like the 16-50) to cover that other focal range.

Admittedly I find myself without a niche in what I like to photograph but the 2.8 I won't say no to when shopping around because a) I enjoy the subject separation or additional flexibility in low light and b) want to take more photos of the night sky and I figured the new 16-50 would do that nicely while still being my workhorse for traveling

I guess versitility is key?

In fairness, just for awareness, I bought the 70-200 because I found it used here in Canada for a price I couldn't say no to at the time, and it's been great for sports especially (or chasing the dog around lol).

The 55-300 I bought recently (again, used at a good price) is mainly going to serve me for travel and maybe even some birding with the longer reach.

Thanks again for your replies - please keep them coming as your collective knowledge really helps me put things in perspective. It's a big decision to drop that kind of money on a 'want' versus a need for me, and I'm just making sure I won't have buyers remorse.

[UncleVanya]

The older sdm 16-50 isn’t as nice but a used copy screwdrive converted is cheap and lighter (I know weight isn’t a big concern) and if you wanted it gives more time to investigate that the PLM issues are not a problem.

[c.a.m]

It's a big decision to drop that kind of money on a 'want' versus a need for me, and I'm just making sure I won't have buyers remorse.

Hi @STARHUNTER94,

I know what you mean about dropping big money. I've gone through numerous rounds of comparing lenses and figuring out my 'needs' and 'wants'. At one point, I was thinking of getting a DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited, but its original price was about CAD $1,000, too rich for me at the time. I looked into a Sigma 17-50 and the DA 18-135, and ended up getting the 18-135. I knew it was not a stellar performer at the longer end, so I treated 60-135mm as sort of a bonus.

When its price dropped to about CAD $700, I purchased a DA 20-40, and have been very happy with it. Now I use my DA 18-135 mainly when I'm out hiking with my wife and don't want to change lenses on the fly.

I've drooled over the new DA* 16-50 PLM, but can't really justify its price of CAD $1650, considering that I have a fairly complete lens collection already. I've concluded that the DA 20-40 covers most of my 'needs' in that focal length range (and I have a DA 15mm Limited for wider angle). I know the 20-40 misses on a few things such as the PLM speed and the wider angle, but I've been able to do quite a lot with it, and it's a joy to use. It's one of my 'always-carry' lenses, and I often pair it with my DA* 50-135 for a relatively compact, high-IQ kit. My photography is mostly of static subjects, so I don't need blazing AF speeds. YMMV.

Current prices in Canada:

DA* 16-50 PLM CAD $1650 (e.g., at Camera Canada), excluding sales tax.

DA 20-40mm Limited CAD $629

So, to me, the savings of $1150 (incl tax) is pretty significant. Perhaps a question is whether your photography would be improved significantly for the extra dollars? Or could you manage nicely with the less expensive lens? As much as I'd love to have the new 16-50 (and the 11-18, and the 55-300 PLM, and a FA 31 Ltd, and...and...), I don't think my images from today's photo outing (landscape) would have been much better, if at all.

I don't know whether the 20-40 would be suitable for astro shooting. Finally, a DA* 16-50 certainly would be more versatile, which comes at a price.

- Craig

[STARHUNTER94]

Hi @STARHUNTER94,

I know what you mean about dropping big money. I've gone through numerous rounds of comparing lenses and figuring out my 'needs' and 'wants'. At one point, I was thinking of getting a DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited, but its original price was about CAD $1,000, too rich for me at the time. I looked into a Sigma 17-50 and the DA 18-135, and ended up getting the 18-135. I knew it was not a stellar performer at the longer end, so I treated 60-135mm as sort of a bonus.

When its price dropped to about CAD $700, I purchased a DA 20-40, and have been very happy with it. Now I use my DA 18-135 mainly when I'm out hiking with my wife and don't want to change lenses on the fly.

I've drooled over the new DA* 16-50 PLM, but can't really justify its price of CAD $1650, considering that I have a fairly complete lens collection already. I've concluded that the DA 20-40 covers most of my 'needs' in that focal length range (and I have a DA 15mm Limited for wider angle). I know the 20-40 misses on a few things such as the PLM speed and the wider angle, but I've been able to do quite a lot with it, and it's a joy to use. It's one of my 'always-carry' lenses, and I often pair it with my DA* 50-135 for a relatively compact, high-IQ kit. My photography is mostly of static subjects, so I don't need blazing AF speeds. YMMV.

Current prices in Canada:

DA* 16-50 PLM CAD $1650 (e.g., at Camera Canada), excluding sales tax.

DA 20-40mm Limited CAD $629

So, to me, the savings of $1150 (incl tax) is pretty significant. Perhaps a question is whether your photography would be improved significantly for the extra dollars? Or could you manage nicely with the less expensive lens? As much as I'd love to have the new 16-50 (and the 11-18, and the 55-300 PLM, and a FA 31 Ltd, and...and...), I don't think my images from today's photo outing (landscape) would have been much better, if at all.

I don't know whether the 20-40 would be suitable for astro shooting. Finally, a DA* 16-50 certainly would be more versatile, which comes at a price.

- Craig

This definitely gives me a lot to think about, as I hadn't given the 20-40 much thought as I have it in my head that the wide end of the 16-50 would be useful for travel/astro etc but at what price (the long end too, but again, at what cost). I may have to see if anyone local wants to try one of my lenses and in exchange to try a 20-40 or 16-50 for an afternoon before I go and put money down on anything. Thank you for your time and thoughts.

The older sdm 16-50 isn’t as nice but a used copy screwdrive converted is cheap and lighter (I know weight isn’t a big concern) and if you wanted it gives more time to investigate that the PLM issues are not a problem.

Have considered this before, having typically been scared away by a lot of what I was reading online. I'll keep an open mind none the less as the question always comes up in my head "how much better is the new one versus the old, for the price?"


Thanks again for the responses everyone.

[StigVidar]

how much better is the new one versus the old, for the price

I had the old one and bougth the new one in august last year. The new one has changed my way of using this lens. Before, I seldom used a larger aperture than f/5.6 on the wide end and f/4 on the long end. But with the new one, I use f/2.8 most of the time and stop down to f/4-f/8 when I want to have a deeper depth of field. The new lens optical performance is in a completely different league than the old one.

[STARHUNTER94]

I had the old one and bougth the new one in august last year. The new one has changed my way of using this lens. Before, I seldom used a larger aperture than f/5.6 on the wide end and f/4 on the long end. But with the new one, I use f/2.8 most of the time and stop down to f/4-f/8 when I want to have a deeper depth of field. The new lens optical performance is in a completely different league than the old one.

This is a good point, and understandable in terms of the tech put into each one (and difference in age).

[Sandy Hancock]

The K-3 III has just had a new firmware update. Has anyone checked whether that makes a difference to any perceived problems with the DA*16-50PLM?

I have both, but I confess my photography time has been pretty limited recently.....

[STARHUNTER94]

Sounds like they may have done some tweaking (even though the 16-50 isn't explicitly called out).

"Changes to V1.41
[Enhanced features]

• Added Astrotracer Type 3.　For details refer to the PDF manual.Click here

[Others]

Improved AF accuracy and stability during viewfinder shooting.
Improved stability for general performance.
* When this update is done, the contents of version 1.31 and earlier will be also updated.
* When this update is done, you will not be able to restore back to version 1.31 or earlier."


And this just made me look at the KP firmware and the latest one says it's optimized for the 16-50 PLM. Curious if we have any real world KP/16-50 users out there that have done some 'lab' tests?

[RICHARD L.]

Have a look at the HD DA 18-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED lens. While not f/2.8 fast, it is in the same league as your DA 55-300 mm PLM telezoom, light and very sharp at all focal lengths. I got mine from an Ontario store for 500 $. Below are 2 images taken at 16 mm FL.

[UncleVanya]

Have a look at the HD DA 18-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED lens. While not f/2.8 fast, it is in the same league as your DA 55-300 mm PLM telezoom, light and very sharp at all focal lengths. I got mine from an Ontario store for 500 $. Below are 2 images taken at 16 mm FL.

This is another good idea. Adding a Samyang manual focus prime lens for Astro to the 16-85 or 20-40 is a reasonable approach as well. But the op may really want the flexibility of an f2.8 zoom with excellent quality.

[STARHUNTER94]

The 16-85 is indeed a good suggestion/alternative, especially considering its price point too. I guess it comes down to a firm assessment of my needs versus how much I'm willing to spend on "wants". The 16-50 is drool worthy but pricy for sure (price is well deserved for the quality and materials etc don't get me wrong).

I am also painfully aware that it's easy to get caught up on fancy gear that won't make me a better photographer :-)

[jddwoods]

The 16-85 is indeed a good suggestion/alternative, especially considering its price point too. I guess it comes down to a firm assessment of my needs versus how much I'm willing to spend on "wants". The 16-50 is drool worthy but pricy for sure (price is well deserved for the quality and materials etc don't get me wrong).

I am also painfully aware that it's easy to get caught up on fancy gear that won't make me a better photographer :-)

I am sure the build quality of the 16-50 PLM is top grade but I have the 16-85 and the build quality is really very good for a mostly plastic construction lens. The zoom and focus rings operate smoothly and the lens barrel even fully extended has no wobble on my copy. Sharpness is really good, I cannot see where it is less sharp than any of my primes and I have some sharp primes, including SMC 35 Macro Limited and DFA 100 WR macro. I would certainly recommend the 16-85.