Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Ray Pulley · 11-25-2007, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

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

Ben,

Thanks for the compliment above. This is my latest Granddaughter, Shaylin.

I know what you mean about how much better this image is in RAW or in the first gen full-res jpeg. It is at least 100% sharper and cleaner than what we can show here. I can easily see all the peach fuzz on the baby's face in the original. These shots were all hand-held, not on a tripod.

After many months with the K10D and quite a bit of frustration trying to get the clean and sharp images I am used to with my older Pentax gear, I was able to get there out of the box with the DA* mounted on the camera. I think that all of the other optics, as good as they are, were not designed to match up with the K10D like the new lenses seem to be.

Ray

Paul · 11-25-2007, 10:24 PM

I have to say the 16-50mm DA* is scary sharp.

jgredline · 11-25-2007, 10:41 PM

I am happy to hear that, As I am picking that up in the morning

matix · 11-26-2007, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

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

Here is the larger version:

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

Ray

That is a perfect image IMHO.... congratulations

Phil

roentarre · 11-26-2007, 03:53 AM

This protrait is stunning. The sweat and all the hair follicles are visible even in this resized image. Your one seems sharper than mine!

Kaimarx · 11-26-2007, 04:40 AM

Man, these DA* lenses should have a High Definition label etched on the lens somewhere.

Gimbal · 11-26-2007, 05:59 AM

From reading in forums here and there I got the impression that the 50-135 was a great lens, and the 16-50 wasn’t that great at all. There was even talk about it not being worth the “star” name. Has the opinion changed or did I get it all wrong?

Ray Pulley · 11-26-2007, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by matix

That is a perfect image IMHO.... congratulations

Phil

Thank you.

A bit more info for those that are interested:

This was shot on my son's living room floor using the curtains as a backdrop.

Lighting was 2 Nikon SB-28 strobes in manual mode.

One strobe was shooting through a white umbrella, the other bounced off of a silver umbrella.

Pocket wizards did the triggering.

Normally I would have a hair light and backlight, but I was on the road and could only take my "strobist" setup.

My lightmeter had a dead battery (note to self: check ALL of the equipment before leaving next time!), so I simply manually set ratios and then used the histogram and preview to get the lighting close.

PP in Photoshop CS2 using what I call "Green Diffuse" method.

Ray

Andrew Faires · 11-26-2007, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

From reading in forums here and there I got the impression that the 50-135 was a great lens, and the 16-50 wasn’t that great at all. There was even talk about it not being worth the “star” name. Has the opinion changed or did I get it all wrong?

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience with the 16-50 has been amazing. Definately worthy of the 'star' designation in all aspects.

benjikan · 11-26-2007, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

I will be picking up this lens on Friday and then I done... For now

Hope you enjoy it as much as I have. I'll be using it next week for a twelve page Fashion shoot.

Ben

Lance B · 11-26-2007, 09:00 PM

Ben,

Your experiences with your new DA*16-50 mirror mine as does your comparison with it to the DA16-45. The DA16-45 was an exceptional lens at it's price point, but the DA*16-50 just pips it as far as resolution is concerned but at the long end, ie 45mm and 50mm, the DA*16-50 has quite a bit better resolution.

The more I use the DA*16-50, the better I like it, in fact I love it. I shot a wedding a few weeks back with it and the AF540FGZ, and the focus assist lamp worked brilliantly in the *very* low light of the wedding venue and I cannot think of one photo where the focus missed.

I highly recommend the DA*16-50 f2.8.

I hope to obtain my DA*50-135 f2.8 in the next few weeks and will be a great combination for my FA*80-200 f2.8.

I hear you're having a meet up with Steve and the new camera soon. I hope all goes well.

jgredline · 11-26-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

Hope you enjoy it as much as I have. I'll be using it next week for a twelve page Fashion shoot.

Ben

I picked up mine today.

I have not used it yet, but as soon as I take some pics with it, I will post some...

Kaimarx · 11-27-2007, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

From reading in forums here and there I got the impression that the 50-135 was a great lens, and the 16-50 wasn’t that great at all. There was even talk about it not being worth the “star” name. Has the opinion changed or did I get it all wrong?

From what i gather in other forums their seems to be a variation in quality coming off the assembly line. Perhaps posting serial numbers can help identify the culprits. When their good, the 16-50 has proven to be stellar.

Gregory · 11-27-2007, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

n

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.

What kind of applications would be more suited towards the 16-45 instead of the 16-50?

dugrant153 · 12-02-2007, 12:33 AM

Hey folks,

So I was trying out the DA* 15-60 (different copies) at different places and found the image quality to be very good but not spectacular. I found the images to be a bit soft with autofocus, and even with manual focus they were still not as sharp as what I've been used to.

I've been shooting with SMC-M prime lenses and a DA 40 Limited and absolutely love them. However, I've seen some shots from DA* lenses here and figured that the 16-50 would fit my bill. However, for some reason, I'm finding the image quality to be not as tack sharp as my primes in general. Mind you, though, that I found the contrast and color to be excellent on the DA* 16-50. The way I did this was shoot a whole bunch of shots with the DA* 16-50 lens, then put my prime lens on and take the same shot.

I was hoping the DA* 16-50 would replace my very much used DA 18-55 kit lens, but the results I'm getting will probably have me stay with my prime lenses for now. Perhaps it's because I'm using a K100D to take pictures with the Pentax DA* 16-50?

On a side note, the DA* 50-135 = awesome.

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

11-26-2007, 12:14 AM	#49
matix Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 239	You nailed it!! Originally posted by Ray Pulley I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow! Here is the larger version: https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg Ray That is a perfect image IMHO.... congratulations Phil

12-02-2007, 12:33 AM	#60
dugrant153 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,059	*DA 16-50 ... very good, but not spectacular?** Hey folks, So I was trying out the DA* 15-60 (different copies) at different places and found the image quality to be very good but not spectacular. I found the images to be a bit soft with autofocus, and even with manual focus they were still not as sharp as what I've been used to. I've been shooting with SMC-M prime lenses and a DA 40 Limited and absolutely love them. However, I've seen some shots from DA* lenses here and figured that the 16-50 would fit my bill. However, for some reason, I'm finding the image quality to be not as tack sharp as my primes in general. Mind you, though, that I found the contrast and color to be excellent on the DA* 16-50. The way I did this was shoot a whole bunch of shots with the DA* 16-50 lens, then put my prime lens on and take the same shot. I was hoping the DA* 16-50 would replace my very much used DA 18-55 kit lens, but the results I'm getting will probably have me stay with my prime lenses for now. Perhaps it's because I'm using a K100D to take pictures with the Pentax DA* 16-50? On a side note, the DA* 50-135 = awesome.

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

11-25-2007, 06:36 PM	#46
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Fallon Nevada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by benjikan 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 Ben, Thanks for the compliment above. This is my latest Granddaughter, Shaylin. I know what you mean about how much better this image is in RAW or in the first gen full-res jpeg. It is at least 100% sharper and cleaner than what we can show here. I can easily see all the peach fuzz on the baby's face in the original. These shots were all hand-held, not on a tripod. After many months with the K10D and quite a bit of frustration trying to get the clean and sharp images I am used to with my older Pentax gear, I was able to get there out of the box with the DA* mounted on the camera. I think that all of the other optics, as good as they are, were not designed to match up with the K10D like the new lenses seem to be. Ray

11-25-2007, 10:24 PM	#47
Paul Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery Posts: 81	I have to say the 16-50mm DA* is scary sharp.

11-25-2007, 10:41 PM	#48
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	I am happy to hear that, As I am picking that up in the morning

11-26-2007, 03:53 AM	#50
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	This protrait is stunning. The sweat and all the hair follicles are visible even in this resized image. Your one seems sharper than mine!

11-26-2007, 04:40 AM	#51
Kaimarx Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Auckland Photos: Gallery Posts: 452	Man, these DA* lenses should have a High Definition label etched on the lens somewhere.

11-26-2007, 05:59 AM	#52
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	From reading in forums here and there I got the impression that the 50-135 was a great lens, and the 16-50 wasn’t that great at all. There was even talk about it not being worth the “star” name. Has the opinion changed or did I get it all wrong?

11-26-2007, 06:16 AM	#53
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Fallon Nevada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by matix That is a perfect image IMHO.... congratulations Phil Thank you. A bit more info for those that are interested: This was shot on my son's living room floor using the curtains as a backdrop. Lighting was 2 Nikon SB-28 strobes in manual mode. One strobe was shooting through a white umbrella, the other bounced off of a silver umbrella. Pocket wizards did the triggering. Normally I would have a hair light and backlight, but I was on the road and could only take my "strobist" setup. My lightmeter had a dead battery (note to self: check ALL of the equipment before leaving next time!), so I simply manually set ratios and then used the histogram and preview to get the lighting close. PP in Photoshop CS2 using what I call "Green Diffuse" method. Ray

11-26-2007, 10:47 AM	#54
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	Originally posted by Gimbal From reading in forums here and there I got the impression that the 50-135 was a great lens, and the 16-50 wasn’t that great at all. There was even talk about it not being worth the “star” name. Has the opinion changed or did I get it all wrong? I can't speak for everyone, but my experience with the 16-50 has been amazing. Definately worthy of the 'star' designation in all aspects.

11-26-2007, 01:00 PM	#55
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by jgredline I will be picking up this lens on Friday and then I done... For now Hope you enjoy it as much as I have. I'll be using it next week for a twelve page Fashion shoot. Ben

11-26-2007, 09:00 PM	#56
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Ben, Your experiences with your new DA16-50 mirror mine as does your comparison with it to the DA16-45. The DA16-45 was an exceptional lens at it's price point, but the DA16-50 just pips it as far as resolution is concerned but at the long end, ie 45mm and 50mm, the DA16-50 has quite a bit better resolution. The more I use the DA16-50, the better I like it, in fact I love it. I shot a wedding a few weeks back with it and the AF540FGZ, and the focus assist lamp worked brilliantly in the very low light of the wedding venue and I cannot think of one photo where the focus missed. I highly recommend the DA16-50 f2.8. I hope to obtain my DA50-135 f2.8 in the next few weeks and will be a great combination for my FA*80-200 f2.8. I hear you're having a meet up with Steve and the new camera soon. I hope all goes well.

11-26-2007, 09:11 PM	#57
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by benjikan Hope you enjoy it as much as I have. I'll be using it next week for a twelve page Fashion shoot. Ben I picked up mine today. I have not used it yet, but as soon as I take some pics with it, I will post some...

11-27-2007, 12:59 AM	#58
Kaimarx Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Auckland Photos: Gallery Posts: 452	Originally posted by Gimbal From reading in forums here and there I got the impression that the 50-135 was a great lens, and the 16-50 wasn’t that great at all. There was even talk about it not being worth the “star” name. Has the opinion changed or did I get it all wrong? From what i gather in other forums their seems to be a variation in quality coming off the assembly line. Perhaps posting serial numbers can help identify the culprits. When their good, the 16-50 has proven to be stellar.

11-27-2007, 04:45 AM	#59
Gregory Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 27	Originally posted by benjikan n 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. What kind of applications would be more suited towards the 16-45 instead of the 16-50?

Question for 16-50mm owners

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!