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
11-25-2007, 06:36 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
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
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
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,530
I am happy to hear that, As I am picking that up in the morning
11-26-2007, 12:14 AM   #49
Senior Member
matix's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 239
You nailed it!!

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!


Here is the larger version:

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

Ray
That is a perfect image IMHO.... congratulations

Phil

11-26-2007, 03:53 AM   #50
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
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
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,884
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by matix Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 750
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
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
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 593
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.
11-26-2007, 09:11 PM   #57
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,530
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Auckland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 452
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
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
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 27
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
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?
12-02-2007, 12:33 AM   #60
Veteran Member
dugrant153's Avatar

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.
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 12:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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