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
08-31-2008, 11:01 PM   #856
Igilligan
Guest




Oh the last one POPS...

Great colors and the best sharpness of the series... That green with those blue eyes... very nice

09-01-2008, 06:35 PM   #857
Veteran Member
-=JoN=-'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,000
DA* 16-50 zoom ring

Just started happening on saturday. Zoom gets stuck at 28mm coming in from 50mm, gets unstuck, and goes through (after some rocking back and forth) now, i noticed, it's stuck at 19mm and wont go all the way to 16mm. i dont want to force it. sometimes still get caught up in 28mm. IQ on it is great. now i fear i have to send it back to Pentax......

anyone else got this problem?....
09-01-2008, 06:38 PM   #858
Veteran Member
-=JoN=-'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,000
I just unmounted it to look into it further...and i hear something in there...
lens was never dropped or mis-handled..
damnit
09-01-2008, 07:07 PM   #859
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
Sorry to hear about that Jon, although it isn't the first time I've heard about that happening with that lens

I guess add it to the list of bad lenses, and send it on it to Pentax.

09-02-2008, 09:34 AM   #860
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Illinois, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 55
The first two DA*16-50mm lenses I had did have significantly more resistance at 28mm only zooming from either direction - almost as if there was hump to get over. My third and best one (but still not satisfactory) exhibited the same resistance at 28mm symptom, but to a much lesser amount. However, in all 3 cases the lens would zoom throughout its entire range. Maybe I just did not have any of them long enough.
09-02-2008, 10:38 AM   #861
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
I'm beginning to think there are 3 types of DA*16-50 people.

In decending order of number:

1) People who own one but do not know there is a problem with it (yet)
2) People who have had the lens (maybe several) and have given up due to a multitude of QC and design problems.
3) The merry privileged few that actually got a good copy, and know it.
09-03-2008, 03:52 AM   #862
FDM
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portugal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19
My view on the DA* 16-50

A lot has been said, in this and other forums, about problems with the DA* 16-50. Softness, chromatic aberration, focusing issues, lemons... This lens just got a bad reputation, which is probably making some potential buyers look for alternatives.
I actually got a 16-50 for my K10d a few months ago and was initially a bit apprehensive about having made a bad choice. I have been using it as my walkaround lens (I also have a DA* 50-135, but I use it only in particular occasions). I now believe this is a good lens with a reasonable price tag. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens ever and CA is definitely an issue, but it takes more than shapness tomake a good photo and CA is easily corrected by software. I think this is a versatile, fast and well built lens.
QC issues have been mentioned as the reason for some of the problems, but I'm wondering whether some of the complains have a psychological factor behind them, influenced by all the bad comments.
I'm posting a few shots from my August trip to some of the Azores islands, taken with this lens. All photos were RAW-processed in Silkypix in the following manner (I do this procedure with all the photos I keep, independently of the lens used):
- CA correction.
- Cropping/rotation for improving composition.
- Tone curve adjustment for exposure tuning.

There are no award winners here, just vacation photos. Any comments are welcome. I think it would be especially interesting to know the feelings of other DA* 16-50 owners on this lens.

--
Attached Images
         
09-03-2008, 05:31 AM   #863
Veteran Member
soccerjoe5's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
did you resize these photos? you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen

09-03-2008, 05:40 AM   #864
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
I find the same thing happens to some of my stuff on the site as well.

As for the lens, I've bought and returned one. but that was 8-9 months ago and we hear a lot less about the BF issues now. I'm certain that a few might be just user worries/error but most were real world problems.

The DA16-45mm I got to replace the 16-50mm is so good that I feel no desire to replace that lens. It's sharp and compact. WS isn't enough reason to take a chance again for a lens that optically may be no better and might be worse. My DA16-45 gets a ton of use and I've had it out in pretty rough weather without any issues.
09-03-2008, 07:41 AM   #865
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
Some softness, but i guess thats because you have the aperture quite far open so the focus is small. Number 2 is a stunnner, and you got some great exposures there.
09-03-2008, 07:48 AM   #866
FDM
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portugal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19
QuoteOriginally posted by soccerjoe5 Quote
did you resize these photos? you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen
Yep, I uploaded the photos with a larger size and they were automatically resized, thus the softness. I should have noticed that! This way the post ends up missing the point. Sorry about that.
09-03-2008, 07:49 AM   #867
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
one problem is people not taking into account the curvature of field.
if you take a test at 16mm at 2.8 of a flat object like some newspaper, the edges will not be great because the depth of field is not actually a flat plane. of course this field curvature is not a good thing, but it is common in many lenses
09-03-2008, 08:08 AM   #868
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by soccerjoe5 Quote
you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen
A noobie asks.......How do you do that?
09-03-2008, 08:15 AM   #869
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
.

QuoteQuote:
QC issues have been mentioned as the reason for some of the problems, but I'm wondering whether some of the complains have a psychological factor behind them, influenced by all the bad comments.


I've had three copies of the 16-50 - the third I've deemed 'perfect'. The first was obviously bad at all FL's and apertures.

The second, however, might have actually been just as good as the third - but I may have jumped the gun on declaring it bad, for the reason you site above - psychological. I remember taking some test shots, and seeing focus issues - it went right back for exchange in the local store. Later on, when I had more time, I did a larger series of tests with my 3rd copy, and with several lenses - and I found that I was getting the same sort of 'problems' I was seeing with that 2nd 16-50 with my FA 50 1.4, 77ltd, and even my 50-135. The focus issues seemed to to occur in 1) dim tungsten, or 2) low contrast settings.

Later, I was also able to try a friend's Canon 40D + kit lens in dim tungsten - and saw the same issues.

I think if we're hyper-aware of focusing issues, but not hyper aware of the settings we're testing in, and don't test other 'sample' lens/body combos in the same exact settings as a control, then we may be prone to calling a lens 'bad' when it's really our testing technique.


.
09-03-2008, 08:43 AM   #870
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
I've seen too many GOOD Photographers here, with their heart set on this lens getting bad copies. Even lately.
These people know how to get the most out of their camera / lens combo, so I wouldn't even dream of it being their fault. Or in their head.

I know that there's still issues with it, and I sure hope that Pentax deals with them soon.
It isn't that bad in the USA where Pentax actually has a customer service, but in Canada if you have a warranty issue your pretty much hooped.
I don't know about the rest of the world on their after the sales service
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 08:56 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