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

[-=JoN=-]

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?....

[-=JoN=-]

I just unmounted it to look into it further...and i hear something in there...
lens was never dropped or mis-handled..
damnit

[little laker]

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.

[Imagination4]

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.

[PentaxPoke]

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.

[FDM]

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

         

[soccerjoe5]

did you resize these photos? you might want to optimize them for web, they look real soft/out-of-focus on my screen

[Peter Zack]

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.

[Isaac314]

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.

[FDM]

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.

[k100d]

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

[whitedogone]

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?

[jsherman999]

.

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.


.

[little laker]

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