[jpzk]

I was also curious about this lens, but gave up trying to get one as I wasn't ready to pay $150-200 just to satisfy my curiosity. As fate would have it, I ended up getting one as collateral baggage on an LX I "won". It's been on my ME Super for about a month...and I still haven't shot anything with it Haven't mounted it on my K10D, as I too wondered what I would do with 60mm-equiv.

Good Lord!
I have found the illustrious Miserere right here on Pentax Forums! Not that I am very surprised, considering the amount of good work you do at "the other site".
I just joined in here a few days ago ... great site.

I had (I am saying "had") a disappointment with my Sigma 100-300 F4 (which you also have, I believe) BUT ... it was not the lens, rather the K20D which is now at the repair shop for an unwanted AF problem! I think it is an all-around focus problem though, not just the AF.
Same lens on the K10D : perfect!
All other lenses: great!

So, no major disappointment recorded other than a pseudo-glitch with the Sigma.

Nice to see you again.
JP

[jamonation]

Biggest disappointment was the one that got away, a 16-50mm for under $500, NIB.. There's a 16-45mm I'm eying for $299 now, just wish it was weather sealed. I can't decide if I should just get it or wait for another DA* (sounds like QC issues are mostly resolved with those, but hearing about that was a disappointment in a way as well).

[Blue]

I wanted to buy 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.4. However, did not save enough. Bought a K20D to replace K10D.

The price will go up from Feb 2009. I am sooooooooooooo sad.

There are frequently A 50mm f1.4 for sale in the market place and occasionally the 35mm f2.

@Maxington: I'm glad to read you say how a 6mp sensor is more forgiving... for a second there, I thought my K20D might be defective or something! I shoot mostly at 2.8 (portraits and indoor shots), but for landscapes, I shoot at f8-f11. With the K20D, at that aperture, the lens is excellent!

There is still a problem though... no way that the k20 sensor is out resolving the DA* 16-50...

I am having a similar issue with my DA 40 ltd... sharp as a tack on the K100, but can not get focus on the K20...

[alexgn]

Well, in 2008, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Pentax DA 70 Ltd., and Pentax DA* 50-135mm. Love them all, so no disappointments for me in 2008.

Jeffery do you have any issues with accurate AF on Tamrons? I've read a lot of complaints about Tamrons.

[jeffrey r]

Jeffery do you have any issues with accurate AF on Tamrons? I've read a lot of complaints about Tamrons.

I have not seen any real-world issues with either of my Tamrons, but to be honest, I have never run my lenses through major tests or what-not. If I gave either of my Tamrons to some of the guys on this board, they may tell me I have front-focusing, back-focusing, de-centering, who-knows-what-else, but I simply look at the overall results. In that regard, I like both of my Tamrons a lot. Sorry I can't be of more help on the technical merits.

[jpzk]

There is still a problem though... no way that the k20 sensor is out resolving the DA* 16-50...

I am having a similar issue with my DA 40 ltd... sharp as a tack on the K100, but can not get focus on the K20...

Strange that the K20D, generally speaking, would not be as sharp as the K10D/K100D ... My K20D is gone to the repair shop for "focusing problems" and I can't wait to see what diagnosis they'll give me.
Since then, I use the K10D with no problems whatsoever.
JP

[Maxington]

There is still a problem though... no way that the k20 sensor is out resolving the DA* 16-50...

I am having a similar issue with my DA 40 ltd... sharp as a tack on the K100, but can not get focus on the K20...

It can easily out resolve it at f2.8. The 16-50 doesn't start getting real sharp until past f4.0 in my experience.

Zooming to 100% to pixel peel on a K20D compared to a K100D is a huge difference. Printing though, you can't really tell, even up to A1 size.

I've got both cameras and a 44 inch wide printer, I generally can't tell what body I used, but I can tell what lens I used.

[PentaxPoke]

It can easily out resolve it at f2.8. The 16-50 doesn't start getting real sharp until past f4.0 in my experience.

Agreed. The 16-50 is "sharp" the same way a butter knife is sharp: only in one spot. Everywhere else it is relatively "dull." (The new Photozone tests bear this out: Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Test Report / Review )

At 50mm the 16-50 is on the verge of getting a "poor" rating at f/2.8. It is not "good" until f/4 as you say.

IMO, the 16-50 is only a good choice for a lens if you need one of the following features:

1) Ability to shoot in a downpour
2) If the sound of a lens focusing bothers you.

If things like IQ are important, there are much better choices for less money. That is not to say that you can't get excellent pictures with it (especially if you only need the center sharp), but the point is that it has very disappointing IQ for the money.

Oh, to answer the OP's question, I had 3 lenses that were my biggest disappointment of 2008. All of them are the DA* 16-50.

It can easily out resolve it at f2.8. The 16-50 doesn't start getting real sharp until past f4.0 in my experience.

Zooming to 100% to pixel peel on a K20D compared to a K100D is a huge difference. Printing though, you can't really tell, even up to A1 size.

I've got both cameras and a 44 inch wide printer, I generally can't tell what body I used, but I can tell what lens I used.

Well I take back what I said about the k20 outresolving the 16-50... I do get that the 'wider the more problems' with a zoom. And 16mm with that big glass is tough.

But does the out resolving issue hold true for a fixed prime like the DA 40? It is a very different lens on my K20, but maybe I am expecting too much when I look at a 100% crop from my little limited.

this is the DA 40 on the K100d F4.5, I can not get close to this detail on the K20, but like I said, I could be just expecting too much.


Thanks for the help. I have been thinking it is a focus issue but maybe it is the big sensor. I will take some pics with the da and print them up

[Maxington]

Agreed. The 16-50 is "sharp" the same way a butter knife is sharp: only in one spot. Everywhere else it is relatively "dull." (The new Photozone tests bear this out: Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Test Report / Review )

At 50mm the 16-50 is on the verge of getting a "poor" rating at f/2.8. It is not "good" until f/4 as you say.

IMO, the 16-50 is only a good choice for a lens if you need one of the following features:

1) Ability to shoot in a downpour
2) If the sound of a lens focusing bothers you.

If things like IQ are important, there are much better choices for less money. That is not to say that you can't get excellent pictures with it (especially if you only need the center sharp), but the point is that it has very disappointing IQ for the money.

Oh, to answer the OP's question, I had 3 lenses that were my biggest disappointment of 2008. All of them are the DA* 16-50.

I don't agree, I tested my 16-50 against a Pentax version of the well regarded Tamron 28-75, and a Canon version of the Tamron lens on a 20D body (friends Canon system), and it was sharper than both, even at f2.8. It's also got awesome micro-contrast. And it goes far wider, which is more difficult to get good results from.

And for the money, it's quite a good lens. You try getting a similar lens from Canon or Nikon, you'd pay a good deal more and end up with similar problems, like their 17-35 L lens. Far lesser focal range, similar problems.

Of course, my far cheaper 35mm f2.0 prime kicks its butt, but hey

[Asahiflex]

My biggest disappointment lens? It's not one lens but one brand of lenses. I'm quite into collecting M42 lenses lately and as far as that is concerned the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are regarded to be one of the best in their class.

The best in their class? That may be true optically (although that's always a matter of taste), but mechanically there's a lot to be desired. I now have five CZJ lenses and maybe it's just bad luck, but there was something wrong with all of them. 3 Had loose focusing, 2 very stiff focusing, 2 had inoperative diaphragms. Compare this to the nearly 50 Takumars I have owned. I have *never* encountered a Takumar with loose or stiff focusing, or inoperative diaphragms, no matter how beat up these were.

Sorry, only Takumars for me from now on

[gkopeliadis]

Lens I bought (and returned back) : Pentax DA 12-24/4.0 due to severe decentering problems (1st and second copy)

Lenses I wanted to buy and after testing them I didn't: Pentax DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135

[Marc Sabatella]

It was hardly a great let down, since I had no expectations for it and it was an impulse purchase anyhow - happened to run across one while looking for something else, and it was cheap. But the M200/4 does very little for me - aside from being a stop faster than the DA50-200 and much nicer for manual focus, it doesn't otherwise seem to be an improvement - and it's so much bigger and heavier that I'd *need* it to be a big improvement to consider using it in situations where I might otherwise be happy with the 50-200. So while it does have its uses and I'm glad to have it, it's probably the lens that has given me the least joy of any I've ever acquired (out of a dozen or so). Well, there was a Gemini 28/2.8 someone gave me a few years ago that I just didn't get, either - although that was largely because I wasn't that into primes yet and especially didn't see any advantage to having one at that focal length.

[Eastern Shore Charlie]

Since I started this thread and was very disappointed in my first copy of this lens...here is the rest of the story. Days after I wrote this thread Pentax sent me back a brand new lens....I have tested this new lens out and have very pleasantly surprised and very happy with the quality of this new lens. This is the lens I wanted when I first bought one. The colors are just plain outstanding and focus and focusing is great. As a couple of members said to me in this thread "don't give up on this lens"...they were right!