Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Is this DA*16-50mm good or bad?
Keep it -- it's good. 2388.46%
Return it or send it in for repair. 311.54%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-15-2007, 10:49 AM   #16
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Wethphotography Quote
Ben and Chris,
Thanks for posting the photos. I was wondering if you both could share your opinions of the lens at 2.8. I know all lens are softest wide-open. How does the 16-50 compare with say the 50-135 at 50mm f2.8 and to other zooms you have used in the 16-50 range at 2.8? Many thanks.
PS Ben, I saw your photos; the 2.8 is noticiably softer. But I cannot compare that with another lens at the same aperature. Any thoughts on how this lens compares at 2.8?
Don't take this as Gospel, please...But my impression is that the 50-135 may be a bit sharper at 2.8 at 50mm......

11-15-2007, 10:50 AM   #17
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
I like the gold and green..It goes with my "Lavender Mini" skirt and blue pumps..
I thought I was the only one with a lavender mini skirt and blue pumps :-)


wll
11-15-2007, 10:54 AM   #18
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
PS at f2.8

QuoteOriginally posted by Wethphotography Quote
Ben and Chris,
Thanks for posting the photos. I was wondering if you both could share your opinions of the lens at 2.8. I know all lens are softest wide-open. How does the 16-50 compare with say the 50-135 at 50mm f2.8 and to other zooms you have used in the 16-50 range at 2.8? Many thanks.
PS Ben, I saw your photos; the 2.8 is noticiably softer. But I cannot compare that with another lens at the same aperature. Any thoughts on how this lens compares at 2.8?
PS..The perception that at 2.8 it is soft may be due to the fact that I was shooting down on a building at about a 60 degree angle and as a result of the Shallow DOF above and below the horizon of my focus point, it will naturally go out.
11-15-2007, 10:55 AM   #19
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
I thought I was the only one with a lavender mini skirt and blue pumps :-)


wll
Jealous "Bi-ch"...OK, I'll lend them to you when you come to Gay Paris.

Ben

11-15-2007, 10:58 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Washington, D.C., USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 417
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
PS..The perception that at 2.8 it is soft may be due to the fact that I was shooting down on a building at about a 60 degree angle and as a result of the Shallow DOF above and below the horizon of my focus point, it will naturally go out.
Ben, Thank you. As you get the chance to put the lens through its paces, I look forward to learning your impressions.
11-15-2007, 11:21 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: James City County, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 322
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
Well here she is....

Wow Ben, nice lens but I have to say I am more interested in that fancy "box" camera you have it attached to.
11-15-2007, 11:35 AM   #22
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by squarerigger Quote
Wow Ben, nice lens but I have to say I am more interested in that fancy "box" camera you have it attached to.
Oh that is my Mac Laptop...

Ben
11-15-2007, 12:02 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Buddha Jones's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,591
Mac Boy... how posh...

11-16-2007, 03:12 PM   #24
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Buddha Jones Quote
Mac Boy... how posh...
Have always been...
11-16-2007, 03:21 PM   #25
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
'Cause I am Anally Retentive..
Needing some enema? hehe
11-16-2007, 03:22 PM   #26
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
How would you compare it to Da 16-45 f4?
11-19-2007, 03:37 PM   #27
Veteran Member
Buddha Jones's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,591
I think Ben is too busy shooting. He will return some day I am sure. Hopefully with another unbiased review.
11-19-2007, 04:09 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 602
QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
How would you compare it to Da 16-45 f4?
I have seen a report that, in terms of sharpness, 16-45 is very close to 16-50.
Also keen to know what is Ben's view on it.
11-20-2007, 04:55 AM   #29
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
16-45 vs 16-50

QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
How would you compare it to Da 16-45 f4?
As I said in another post query:

I finally received my Pentax 16-50 & 50-135 Star Lenses last week and am very pleased with their performance. The 16-50 although not flagrantly sharper than my 16-45 lens, is very sharp and the benefit of a constant f2.8 aperture is a plus. The 50-135 however is brutally sharp. It is too bad that I rarely shoot long therefore will not use as frequently as my shorter focal lengths.

Ben

I will add that the 16-45 is an extremely capable lens as I have used it with confidence for published work. I will not part with it and will use it for different applications...and NO not for a door stop.
11-20-2007, 12:33 PM   #30
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
16-50

Hi Benjamin,

I was ready to buy the DA 14, 21, and 40, but I'm thinking I can go for the 16-50 instead. I wouldn't need the 14, as 16 would be wide enough for what I do, so the cost of the 16-50 compared to the three primes is favorable. In your opinion, would an enthusiast find the image sharpness and overall quality negligible between the 16-50 and primes, or is there still a clear difference?

Thanks!
Todd
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question to K-5 Owners kevinschoenmakers Pentax K-5 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 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top