[bymy141]

Hi,

We have just returned from Rome.
It was dark and wet but of course the food was excellent
The 16-50 never left my camera. It resisted the rain better than we did.

A few impressions below.

Attachment 6592
t 0,6s f3.2 50mm ISO200
Attachment 6593
t 1/15s f4.0 16mm ISO400
Attachment 6594
t 1/500s f3.5 50mm ISO400
Attachment 6595
t 1/15s f2.8 16mm ISO400

---

Last edited by bymy141; 03-03-2008 at 02:40 PM.

[bymy141]

A few more pictures.

Attachment 6597
t 1/5s f2.8 21mm ISO200
Attachment 6598
t 1/13s f2.8 16mm ISO800

- Bert

[J.Scott]

Nice travel pics! What a huge empty church. Looks like you had a run-in with the Police - that could be an interesting story!

[weatherwise2]

I was in Rome last spring before I got my pentax but got a lot of good and similar pictures with a P&S Olympus digital. Great city and nice shots. It was dirtier then some of the other cities in EU that I have been in.

[sajmmiller]

Nice shots Bert. I always enjoy viewing photos of places I've never been. Thanks for taking me to Rome.

I think they would be even better if compressed a little less.

[bymy141]

Thanks for your comments guys.
The pictures are not really special, the weather was terrible.
Rome, however, is a very interesting city. Loads and loads of history.
It takes more than a few days to discover it all.
Excellent food, reasonable prices if you are not drinking in a bar across the street of the collosseum.

I've been many times in Italy, Toscane and Venice are also worth a visit.

Many more pictures here: Picasa Web Albums - Bert - Rome 7-10 dec...

- Bert

[distorted_vision]

i love the 1st 2 shots.. awesome mate.... well done. they came up really well!!

[Karl Inge S]

#2 in the first post realy caught my eye, nice

[JCSullivan]

Nice shots Bert, but the compression really did them an injustice.
Question: How in the heck did you manage an empty St. Peter's???

How true, after umpteen number of times to the Eternal City I have yet to see it all. Mind you, there are places I been more than a couple of times.

If any of you are traveling to Rome with someone who speaks the language, I have the address of a traditional Rome eatery where you'll enjoy the food and the ambiance. It is NOT a tourist joint.

Graziella the owner, is one heck of a fun woman - and a great cook too.

[bymy141]

Nice shots Bert, but the compression really did them an injustice.
Question: How in the heck did you manage an empty St. Peter's???

It was not empty. That shot was made on the 8th of december. A catholic holiday.
There was a mass in progress when I was there. You can see the crowd in the far end.
It is just that the St Peter is such an enormeous church....

I also made a picture of the pope walking by after the ceremony ended. Unfortunatly somebody bumped into me and the picture is somewhat blur.
You cannot have it all.

I myself like the picture of my wife and my mother lighting a candle in one of the churches a lot. The light on her face looks nice.

The last picture shows pink (!) clouds. Yes, they were pink.
I've seen white, yellow clouds caused by reflecting city lights very often.
This looked spooky.

We had very, very, good food and wine for nice prices in some small family restaurants near the Termini.

It was good fun. I could live there.

- Bert

[channeler]

Great shots Bert. You've done well with difficult lighting situations. I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of the guys in No 3. What ISO/apertures/shutter speeds were you using for the night and indoor scenes?

Paul

[bymy141]

Great shots Bert. You've done well with difficult lighting situations. I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of the guys in No 3. What ISO/apertures/shutter speeds were you using for the night and indoor scenes?

Paul

Paul, I've edited the postings to include the exposure data.

- Bert

[Harald]

DA* 16-50, got mine some days ago and now I am confused or even bewildered. You ask why...

Well, I have made some experiments because weather has been too dull for real photographing. And my findings make me nervous.

1. Focusing is weird.. sometimes it is right on but mostly way off at wide end... very inconsistent.. I cant find situations where it always fails or where it always works perfectly.

2. The wide end at 16mm is soft. And I mean really soft. But what makes me rattle: it seems that sometimes it is quite good, but usually ... soft.

I made some tests with tripod and newspaper, distance 2 meters, manual focusing, sensor plane parallel with wall (and newspaper) etc. I know quite well common parameters in this kind of testing. I concentrated only to center part of the picture because if it isn't good then it doesn't matter what kind the corners are. And my findings are:

16mm 2.8: very very soft
16mm 4. still very soft, some enhancement visible
16mm 5.6: quite good
16mm 8 good/very good
16mm 11 good/very good
20mm 2.8: quite good
20mm 4. very good
20mm 5.6 very good
etc.

The lens is very sharp and contrasty at all other focal lengths and apertures but in the 16mm at f2.8 and f:4 are totally unacceptable, they cant be used at all....

I made same tests with my DA 16-45 and it wins hands down at 16mm until f:8. At f:5.6 they seems to be equal. At all other focal lengths the DA* seems to be better.

Focusing is a joke at wide end. I don't know if these problems are somehow combined, but it works much better at longer end. Actually it is quite good there.

I am really happy not have been sold my DA 16-45 yet.

Obviously I have to return this piece of junk. I don't need 20-50/2.8 lens because I already have very good copy of Tamron 28-75/2.8.
Do I have any hope to get good copy or do I just try to claim my money back? I suspect that there is no unsold DA* 16-50:s in the shelfs here in Finland....

Edit: some results more: it seems that at shorter distances, less than one meter, results are better. I took some pictures at my son at the distance of ~1m, 16mm, 2.8 and 4.0. Those appeared to be at the acceptable level, not sharp, but good enough. Then I asked him to go to the distance of two meters.... soft, soft and soft. It doesn't matter if AF or MF is used. I even chanced focusing screen to Kaz Eye micro prism/split screen one.... it doesn't help. When picture seems to be perfectly focused, picture still is soft.

I also made some quick and dirty comparisons at 28mm focal length between DA* and my Tamron 28-75... you do not like this, but less than 1/2 price Tamron seems to be as good as DA*....

I have considered myself as an true believer (or an fanboy as others might say), but this puts my belief to real test

[daacon]

This scares me , while I have heard good things about this lens I have heard almost as many bad . This a shame and is a likely a result of a lack of quality control added to market demand. It seems hit and miss on getting a good copy. It is a focal range I enjoy shooting at , but thanks to stories like yours (sorry) it has soured me off getting one in the near future.

If you truly enjoy it I would echange for another copy. If you happen to get a good copy I have heard or read no complaints similiar to yours.

Good luck.

[jbcampbell]

Your experience mirrors mine. I got both the 16-50 & the 50-135, after test shots with each lens it was obvious that the 16-50 was either defective or there is a serious design flaw. The 50-135 is tack sharp but the 16-50 is optically challenged ;-)
The build quality is nice, the fit & finish of both lenses are very good. So I sent mine back for exchange and my new one should arrive Monday. I will let you guys know what I find, but if the second one is a stinker it goes back for a refund & I stick to tried & true prime glass!