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
11-21-2007, 01:29 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 750
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
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
Just some loose comparisons I've done between my 14mm and 16-50mm show that they're very comparable in image quality. The 16-50 is a bit sharper in the center at all apertures and slightly more so in the corners....well, I only checked one corner - so don't take this as gospel

I also like the colours the 16-50 produces better than the 14mm. The 14mm has a warmish cast when doing a side-by-side comparison.

Build on both are excellent. I do like the metal body of the 14mm, but the 16-50 feels just as solid.

The 16-50 dwarfs the 14mm - and the 14mm isn't small to begin with.

I don't have the other lenses which you're looking at, but I also compared the 16-50 to my 43mm ltd. The 16-50 does well, but the 43mm outshines it at all apertures, corner to center to corner. That said, I wouldn't not use the 16-50 at that focal length as it's still yielding plenty of detail.

Hope this helps

11-21-2007, 01:45 PM   #32
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Thanks for that Andrew!

I prefer prints in the 11x14 to 16x20 range (sorry for metric folks), do you think I'll notice a difference there? I don't "pixel peep," I just want them to look fantastic on my (and others') walls, even when looked at somewhat closely. I realize this is all very subjective, I just like the idea of the flexibility in use and the cost of the 16-50 if it's comparable (not necessarily EQUAL) to the primes.

Thanks again,
Todd
11-21-2007, 02:47 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 750
No problem, Todd.

As for printing, I honestly can't say as I've never printed a photo that size....yet (an LF printer is on the list right after the 50-135). If I was to guess, I'd say that generally you'd be fine (I don't think I'd try something in a 16x20 that was shot at 16mm and f/2.8, but I wouldn't shy away from it at f/5.6).
11-21-2007, 05:18 PM   #34
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
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
Hello Todd;

I cannot speak for the 14, as I do not own one. As to the 21 and 40, I would say that the 16-50 f2.8 as with the primes would be optimum at 4.5 to 5.6 and above. In that case I totally agree with your logic and in your position and would go for the 16-50. In fact I will use it for my next up and coming Fashion shoot...

Ben

11-21-2007, 10:33 PM   #35
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Well...

QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
Hello Todd;

I cannot speak for the 14, as I do not own one. As to the 21 and 40, I would say that the 16-50 f2.8 as with the primes would be optimum at 4.5 to 5.6 and above. In that case I totally agree with your logic and in your position and would go for the 16-50. In fact I will use it for my next up and coming Fashion shoot...

Ben

...can't argue with that answer! Looks like I'll be going with the 16-50 and the da 70. Thanks for the reply.

And thanks for your follow up too Andrew!
11-21-2007, 11:19 PM   #36
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
I will be picking up this lens on Friday and then I done... For now
11-23-2007, 01:24 PM   #37
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
16-50 at 16mm f2.8 15th of a second

Here is a shot with the 16-50 at f2.8 iso 250 at 15th of a second off center.

View Large Here:

User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous
Attached Images
 
11-25-2007, 02:55 PM   #38
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
How Good is the Pentax 16-50 Star Lens

Look...I have had some time to spend with this lens. The build quality is excellent. It is good at 2.8 from 16 to 50 mm. Stop down one to two stops and it is stunning. Here is a sample of a portrait I did at my local Pizza Restaurant of "Adel" who has been there for ions.

Judge for yourself.
Here is the large version:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/1074/1_Adel.jpg

Attached Images
 
11-25-2007, 05:32 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Stratman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,464
Looks quite sharp to me Ben, I just wish i could afford one
11-25-2007, 05:35 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Very good to hear Ben, I have one on the way and should have it shortly. That image is sharp indeed. Actually almost too sharp as a tight portrait lens as you can see every blemish. Seems Pentax has cleared up the QC issues with the first product run when users were reporting some variable results..

When you took the shot I assume you had the hood on. Do I see a shadow from the hood/flash?
11-25-2007, 06:01 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
I agree

I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow!

Saturated and very sharp. I have all of the limited primes and the FA 50mm F1.4 and as far as I am concerned, you give up very little when you reach for this lens.

It focuses very well in low light and has been very accurate so far with little hunting when focusing.



Here is the larger version:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg

Ray

Last edited by Ray Pulley; 01-16-2008 at 11:09 AM.
11-25-2007, 06:03 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Buddha Jones's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,591
Every skin blemish and discolorization, the hairs in his ears, every fiber in his shirt, I think I can even tell what he had for lunch.
11-25-2007, 06:04 PM   #43
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
Very good to hear Ben, I have one on the way and should have it shortly. That image is sharp indeed. Actually almost too sharp as a tight portrait lens as you can see every blemish. Seems Pentax has cleared up the QC issues with the first product run when users were reporting some variable results..

When you took the shot I assume you had the hood on. Do I see a shadow from the hood/flash?
I actually removed the lens hood. I don't see the shadow you are referring to...OOPS.
11-25-2007, 06:07 PM   #44
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote
I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow!

Saturated and very sharp. I have all of the limited primes and the FA 50mm F1.4 and as far as I am concerned, you give up very little when you reach for this lens.

It focuses very well in low light and has been very accurate so far with little hunting when focusing.




Here is the larger version:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg



Ray
That is a "ludicrously" beautiful image. you captured the moment magnificently...BRAVO!!!
11-25-2007, 06:15 PM   #45
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Buddha Jones Quote
Every skin blemish and discolorization, the hairs in his ears, every fiber in his shirt, I think I can even tell what he had for lunch.
The original is much better. To get this online I needed to save the JPEG at 7 out of 12 in PS. Rather than full 12 of 12. There are some Jpeg artifact on this one that are not evident on the original.

Ben
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 09:30 AM. | 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