Question for 16-50mm owners

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 06:21 AM

Rico,

I actually took many more images at different focal lengths and apertures with both the kit and the * lens with the tripod, camera and newspaper in the EXACT SAME position. Every single image showed the same thing: the kit lens demonstrated good, equal sharpness on the left, center and right aspects; the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left on every single image! If that isn't proof that there is a problem with my * lens, then I don't know what is.

Peter Zack · 01-04-2008, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Tom Lusk

"They told me they were unaware of any QC issues with this lens or with their Vietnam factory"

What complete cr*p!

From all the posts I've read about this particular lens, they must have had a record number of these lenses returned to them.

They should refund your shipping charges, give you a new lens - and an apology.

Be thankful you don't have to deal with Pentax Canada - still waiting for an answer to my email from a month ago.

Agreed. I've had no luck with them and emails as well. I've dealt with Pentax USA which was quick and easy. They've answered questions and on 2 occasions, I've had product breakdown line drawings faxed to me from them.

My experience with buying a DA*16-50 was the same. I returned it to the online retailer for a full refund and he was good about it. Pentax has to know. There have been too many returns. I'd never consider getting this lens used, now or years from now without hands on testing.

Kaimarx · 01-04-2008, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Tbear

Rico,

I actually took many more images at different focal lengths and apertures with both the kit and the * lens with the tripod, camera and newspaper in the EXACT SAME position. Every single image showed the same thing: the kit lens demonstrated good, equal sharpness on the left, center and right aspects; the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left on every single image! If that isn't proof that there is a problem with my * lens, then I don't know what is.

Wow that must be really bad then. I love the center resolution on the kit but its fairly dismal in the corners...somehow mashes the finer details into blobs of colour particularly at the wider end. Perhaps its time for our insiders to voice the concerns to their contacts directly if they haven't already...

Rico · 01-04-2008, 10:11 AM

Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first?

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Rico

Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first?

Hi Rico,

Yeah, I did my test using a number of different focal length, aperture combinations such as 18mm f/3.5, 31mm f/4, etc. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the newspaper position and camera position were identical for all test shots. The camera was very rigidly fixed to a heavy duty tripod during the single lens change that was performed. The results all basically showed the same thing over and over again: namely, that the kit lens showed no discernible difference in sharpness between left and right sides of the image, while the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left with no problem with sharpness on the right. I think it is difficult to draw a conclusion other than the obvious one: my copy of the DA* 16-50 has a serious lens alignment problem.

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Rico

Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first?

Hi Rico,

Yeah, I did my test using a number of different focal length, aperture combinations such as 18mm f/3.5, 31mm f/4, etc. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the newspaper position and camera position were identical for all test shots. The camera was very rigidly fixed to a heavy duty tripod during the single lens change that was performed. The results all basically showed the same thing over and over again: namely, that the kit lens showed no discernible difference in sharpness between left and right sides of the image, while the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left with no problem with sharpness on the right. I think it is difficult to draw a conclusion other than the obvious one: my copy of the DA* 16-50 has a serious lens alignment problem. If it makes a difference to you, I shot with the * lens first and then the kit lens.

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Rico

Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first?

Hi Rico,

Yeah, I did my test using a number of different focal length, aperture combinations such as 18mm f/3.5, 31mm f/4, etc. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the newspaper position and camera position were identical for all test shots. The camera was very rigidly fixed to a heavy duty tripod during the single lens change that was performed. The results all basically showed the same thing over and over again: namely, that the kit lens showed no discernible difference in sharpness between left and right sides of the image, while the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left with no problem with sharpness on the right. I think it is difficult to draw a conclusion other than the obvious one: my copy of the DA* 16-50 has a serious lens alignment problem. I never removed the camera from the tripod during the entire test. The single lens change was very very carefully done so as not to disturb the camera/tripod position in any way. This was not difficult to accomplish as I made sure the tripod was gripping my camera like a vice.

jgredline · 01-04-2008, 02:59 PM

Well so far I have returned two copies of the lens and the third should be in next week. Hopefully it will be fixed. My 50-135* is amazing...

I had also not thought of a newspaper test, but will have to do that. Great job and I share in your frustration. If I were a pro, I would be angry and upset, instead of just upset.

Andrew Faires · 01-04-2008, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by SupremeMoFo

Um, and you've never tried again? Any more than 2 business days and I'd be re-sending or hassling by phone!!

I probably should have, but I got the info I needed elsewhere. Hence, I didn't bother trying for a second ignored inquiry.

Rico · 01-04-2008, 04:19 PM

Tbear all I was asking is if you did more than one test. The results you got for one test are all the same which would make sense. In no way do I see one test as conclusive to any thing other than for that one test the lens focused consistently the same. Your conclusion can be that there is something wrong with the lens but it does not rule out that there was not something wrong with your test. As you only did one test.

Sending the lens back to whom you purchased it from would have been a much quicker turn around if you were still in the range of the retailers exchange policy. IMHO.

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Rico

Tbear all I was asking is if you did more than one test. The results you got for one test are all the same which would make sense. In no way do I see one test as conclusive to any thing other than for that one test the lens focused consistently the same. Your conclusion can be that there is something wrong with the lens but it does not rule out that there was not something wrong with your test. As you only did one test.

Sending the lens back to whom you purchased it from would have been a much quicker turn around if you were still in the range of the retailers exchange policy. IMHO.

We can agree to disagree on the validity of my test findings.

No question, you are right that turn around time would be faster sending it back to the retailer. However, I purposely sent it to Pentax, in part because they told me that they were not aware of any problems with this lens, which is rather humorous (or sad depending on your perspective). I wanted Pentax to test this lens for themselves and see if they think it falls within their specifications. I don't mind waiting a little longer for Pentax's response.

**Canada_Rockies** · 01-04-2008, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Tbear

No question, you are right on this one. However, I purposely sent it to Pentax, in part because they told me that they were not aware of any problems with this lens, which is rather humorous (or sad depending on your perspective). I wanted Pentax to test this lens for themselves and see if they think it falls within their specifications.

I hit it lucky, I guess. My 16-50 shows no flaws other than the CAs, and I think only a redesign will solve that problem.

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

I hit it lucky, I guess. My 16-50 shows no flaws other than the CAs, and I think only a redesign will solve that problem.

I would have had a party if my 16-50 was like yours.

**Canada_Rockies** · 01-04-2008, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Tbear

I would have had a party if my 16-50 was like yours.

You can actually see a bottom left corner shot from the 16-50 on my flickr shots. I don't think I have anything to complain about. It's not a newspaper test, but I don't see any OOF problems with it. Check the printing on the police tape.

Crop from bottom left corner of Fire on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Tbear · 01-04-2008, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

You can actually see a bottom left corner shot from the 16-50 on my flickr shots. I don't think I have anything to complain about. It's not a newspaper test, but I don't see any OOF problems with it. Check the printing on the police tape.

Crop from bottom left corner of Fire on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I have never doubted that there are well-made copies of the DA* 16-50mm out there. I'm hoping that the lens Pentax sends back to me will be among them.

View Poll Results: Is this DA*16-50mm good or bad?
Keep it -- it's good.	23	88.46%
Return it or send it in for repair.	3	11.54%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question to K-5 Owners	kevinschoenmakers	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	3	10-19-2010 06:40 PM
Question for K-X owners.	dimebagdave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	04-29-2010 05:17 AM
PZ-1P question(for owners)	LongLiveVelvia	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	3	10-09-2009 10:51 AM
A question for K7 owners	dafiryde	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	09-05-2009 02:52 AM
Question for FA 28-70/4 owners	Ivan Glisin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	08-13-2007 01:08 PM

01-04-2008, 06:21 AM	#211
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Rico, I actually took many more images at different focal lengths and apertures with both the kit and the * lens with the tripod, camera and newspaper in the EXACT SAME position. Every single image showed the same thing: the kit lens demonstrated good, equal sharpness on the left, center and right aspects; the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left on every single image! If that isn't proof that there is a problem with my * lens, then I don't know what is.

01-04-2008, 06:41 AM	#212
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Originally posted by Tom Lusk *"They told me they were unaware of any QC issues with this lens or with their Vietnam factory"* What complete crp! From all the posts I've read about this particular lens, they must have had a record number of these lenses returned to them. They should refund your shipping charges, give you a new lens - and an apology. Be thankful you don't have to deal with Pentax Canada - still waiting for an answer to my email from a month ago. Agreed. I've had no luck with them and emails as well. I've dealt with Pentax USA which was quick and easy. They've answered questions and on 2 occasions, I've had product breakdown line drawings faxed to me from them. My experience with buying a DA16-50 was the same. I returned it to the online retailer for a full refund and he was good about it. Pentax has to know. There have been too many returns. I'd never consider getting this lens used, now or years from now without hands on testing.

01-04-2008, 06:43 AM	#213
Kaimarx Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Auckland Photos: Gallery Posts: 452	Originally posted by Tbear Rico, I actually took many more images at different focal lengths and apertures with both the kit and the * lens with the tripod, camera and newspaper in the EXACT SAME position. Every single image showed the same thing: the kit lens demonstrated good, equal sharpness on the left, center and right aspects; the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left on every single image! If that isn't proof that there is a problem with my * lens, then I don't know what is. Wow that must be really bad then. I love the center resolution on the kit but its fairly dismal in the corners...somehow mashes the finer details into blobs of colour particularly at the wider end. Perhaps its time for our insiders to voice the concerns to their contacts directly if they haven't already...

01-04-2008, 10:11 AM	#214
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first?

01-04-2008, 02:23 PM	#215
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by Rico Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first? Hi Rico, Yeah, I did my test using a number of different focal length, aperture combinations such as 18mm f/3.5, 31mm f/4, etc. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the newspaper position and camera position were identical for all test shots. The camera was very rigidly fixed to a heavy duty tripod during the single lens change that was performed. The results all basically showed the same thing over and over again: namely, that the kit lens showed no discernible difference in sharpness between left and right sides of the image, while the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left with no problem with sharpness on the right. I think it is difficult to draw a conclusion other than the obvious one: my copy of the DA* 16-50 has a serious lens alignment problem.

01-04-2008, 02:24 PM	#216
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by Rico Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first? Hi Rico, Yeah, I did my test using a number of different focal length, aperture combinations such as 18mm f/3.5, 31mm f/4, etc. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the newspaper position and camera position were identical for all test shots. The camera was very rigidly fixed to a heavy duty tripod during the single lens change that was performed. The results all basically showed the same thing over and over again: namely, that the kit lens showed no discernible difference in sharpness between left and right sides of the image, while the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left with no problem with sharpness on the right. I think it is difficult to draw a conclusion other than the obvious one: my copy of the DA* 16-50 has a serious lens alignment problem. If it makes a difference to you, I shot with the * lens first and then the kit lens.

01-04-2008, 02:29 PM	#217
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by Rico Tbear if the camera was not square from the start you could shoot at a thousand different focal lengths and get the same results. Did you repeat the test by umounting the camera and remounting it. Which lens did you shoot with first? Hi Rico, Yeah, I did my test using a number of different focal length, aperture combinations such as 18mm f/3.5, 31mm f/4, etc. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the newspaper position and camera position were identical for all test shots. The camera was very rigidly fixed to a heavy duty tripod during the single lens change that was performed. The results all basically showed the same thing over and over again: namely, that the kit lens showed no discernible difference in sharpness between left and right sides of the image, while the * lens showed poor sharpness on the left with no problem with sharpness on the right. I think it is difficult to draw a conclusion other than the obvious one: my copy of the DA* 16-50 has a serious lens alignment problem. I never removed the camera from the tripod during the entire test. The single lens change was very very carefully done so as not to disturb the camera/tripod position in any way. This was not difficult to accomplish as I made sure the tripod was gripping my camera like a vice.

01-04-2008, 02:59 PM	#218
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Well so far I have returned two copies of the lens and the third should be in next week. Hopefully it will be fixed. My 50-135* is amazing... I had also not thought of a newspaper test, but will have to do that. Great job and I share in your frustration. If I were a pro, I would be angry and upset, instead of just upset.

01-04-2008, 03:15 PM	#219
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	Originally posted by SupremeMoFo Um, and you've never tried again? Any more than 2 business days and I'd be re-sending or hassling by phone!! I probably should have, but I got the info I needed elsewhere. Hence, I didn't bother trying for a second ignored inquiry.

01-04-2008, 04:19 PM	#220
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	Tbear all I was asking is if you did more than one test. The results you got for one test are all the same which would make sense. In no way do I see one test as conclusive to any thing other than for that one test the lens focused consistently the same. Your conclusion can be that there is something wrong with the lens but it does not rule out that there was not something wrong with your test. As you only did one test. Sending the lens back to whom you purchased it from would have been a much quicker turn around if you were still in the range of the retailers exchange policy. IMHO.

01-04-2008, 04:38 PM	#221
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by Rico Tbear all I was asking is if you did more than one test. The results you got for one test are all the same which would make sense. In no way do I see one test as conclusive to any thing other than for that one test the lens focused consistently the same. Your conclusion can be that there is something wrong with the lens but it does not rule out that there was not something wrong with your test. As you only did one test. Sending the lens back to whom you purchased it from would have been a much quicker turn around if you were still in the range of the retailers exchange policy. IMHO. We can agree to disagree on the validity of my test findings. No question, you are right that turn around time would be faster sending it back to the retailer. However, I purposely sent it to Pentax, in part because they told me that they were not aware of any problems with this lens, which is rather humorous (or sad depending on your perspective). I wanted Pentax to test this lens for themselves and see if they think it falls within their specifications. I don't mind waiting a little longer for Pentax's response.

01-04-2008, 04:40 PM	#222
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Tbear No question, you are right on this one. However, I purposely sent it to Pentax, in part because they told me that they were not aware of any problems with this lens, which is rather humorous (or sad depending on your perspective). I wanted Pentax to test this lens for themselves and see if they think it falls within their specifications. I hit it lucky, I guess. My 16-50 shows no flaws other than the CAs, and I think only a redesign will solve that problem.

01-04-2008, 04:43 PM	#223
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies I hit it lucky, I guess. My 16-50 shows no flaws other than the CAs, and I think only a redesign will solve that problem. I would have had a party if my 16-50 was like yours.

01-04-2008, 04:47 PM	#224
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Tbear I would have had a party if my 16-50 was like yours. You can actually see a bottom left corner shot from the 16-50 on my flickr shots. I don't think I have anything to complain about. It's not a newspaper test, but I don't see any OOF problems with it. Check the printing on the police tape. Crop from bottom left corner of Fire on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

01-04-2008, 04:54 PM	#225
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies You can actually see a bottom left corner shot from the 16-50 on my flickr shots. I don't think I have anything to complain about. It's not a newspaper test, but I don't see any OOF problems with it. Check the printing on the police tape. Crop from bottom left corner of Fire on Flickr - Photo Sharing! I have never doubted that there are well-made copies of the DA* 16-50mm out there. I'm hoping that the lens Pentax sends back to me will be among them.