[deejjjaaaa]

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

but the edges must be uniformly not great... if you have a noticeable difference between 2 sides all the time - you have a lemon

[augustmoon]

I was fortunate to get a good copy on my first try. I bought it at a store (aden camera in Toronto) that let me try it out and said I could exchange it if I wanted to.

I really like this lens a lot for travel and walk around

here's 2 shots all handheld while walking with my wife (so no tripods or extra time composing, just snaps, the waterfront while on a ferry while it was docking) one at 16mm and 2.8 (the weakest combo for the lens, and soft if you zoom in and pixel-peep, but at full view still a nice snap)

this image is at 16mm and f2.8



this image is at 28mm and f6.3

[fearview]

@FDM

i dont want to insult you but..

do you have another photo sample. what you has up there quite soft or misfocus for my standart

[FDM]

@FDM

i dont want to insult you but..

do you have another photo sample. what you has up there quite soft or misfocus for my standart

I'm feeling pretty stupid now... the photos look indeed quite crappy after uploading... I should have previewed more carefully before posting. I'm linking a couple below, without uploading, just to try to save face...

http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~fdmagalh/ph/fdp/IMGP1225.jpg

http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~fdmagalh/ph/fdp/IMGP1509.jpg

[leadbelly]

I'm feeling pretty stupid now... the photos look indeed quite crappy after uploading... I should have previewed more carefully before posting. I'm linking a couple below, without uploading, just to try to save face...

http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~fdmagalh/ph/fdp/IMGP1225.jpg

http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~fdmagalh/ph/fdp/IMGP1509.jpg

your 2nd shot is just...wow. Nice!

[audiobomber]

Does your 16-50mm underexpose? I took some sample photos in a shop using a K100DS and K20. I compared the 16-50mm with various primes and found that it underexposed on both cameras when compared to the prime lenses.

[mk07138]

I bought my 16-50mm when I bought my k20d and I love it. I hadn't heard any of the complaints about the lens at the time and I bought it because of the combination of wide aperture, focal length, and weather sealing.

I've had no complaints about the lens and I love the images that I've gotten from it.

Attached Images

 

[mk07138]

Another picture I got using the 16-50.

Not an award winner by any means but I like it. 16mm, f13

[PentaxPoke]

-This lens just got a bad reputation,

-I'm wondering whether some of the complains have a psychological factor behind them, influenced by all the bad comments.

-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.

OK, I highlighted three comments of yours above. First, this lens has a bad reputation because of the very large numbers of people who have had real problems with it. It is no bias against Pentax or "psychological factors", or anything like that. I am not the only one here who had to send back 3 16-50's because they were bad. My first two were terribly bad (and I posted samples). My third one I thought was ok until I compared it to much less expensive lenses like the Tamron 17-50 and the Pentax 18-250. Those lenses wide open were better than my third DA*16-50 at f/5.6. It was not imaginary or "psychological." The defects were real and I posted the samples here for all to see.

This brings me to your third quote. With the experience I have had I can NOT say that this is a good lens with a reasonable price tag. It seems like you can't make that statement either. It is almost twice as expensive as the competition yet you say that "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." Should you really have such an opinion of a lens that costs over $700?

I wouldn't have seemed so harsh in this response except that I resent my experience being chalked up to "psychological reasons" as if I went through all the hassle of returing these lenses because I was subliminally affected by posts I read on some message board.

BTW, none of my defective lenses were returned for BF or FF problems. All three of them were optical aberration defects, so its not the camera, or the photographer, or the method, etc.

[Serpiente]

wow the 2nd one is nice..

I am also looking for a travel lens for a trip to Peru.. I am into nature photography..I want a DA* (weather sealed) and I am thinking of the 16-50 f2.8, 50-135 f2.8, 200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4. Or I want the Sigma 180mm 3.5 macro. I want something to shoot from the hand (no tripod) so I think the 16-50 and 50-135 are left.

[Canada_Rockies]

In honour of the 150th anniversary of British Columbia, a number of car buffs re-enacted a trip from Fernie to Victoria using old cars. The oldest on display was a 1905 Orient Buckboard. The owner wore a badge that read 1936 Dodge. When I asked, he stated that he tows a trailer with the Dodge to carry the Orient.

These are three of my shots with the DA* 16-50 that show a good copy of the lens in my opinion. I include the Dodge 6 grill to show edge to edge. Exported to jpeg from Lightroom at 100% quality, resized to fit under the 500 Kb limit.

1931 Packard
1930 Dodge 6 (Grill only)
1905 Orient Buckboard. 4 hp.

[jsherman999]

OK, I highlighted three comments of yours above. First, this lens has a bad reputation because of the very large numbers of people who have had real problems with it. It is no bias against Pentax or "psychological factors", or anything like that. I am not the only one here who had to send back 3 16-50's because they were bad. My first two were terribly bad (and I posted samples). My third one I thought was ok until I compared it to much less expensive lenses like the Tamron 17-50 and the Pentax 18-250. Those lenses wide open were better than my third DA*16-50 at f/5.6. It was not imaginary or "psychological." The defects were real and I posted the samples here for all to see.

This brings me to your third quote. With the experience I have had I can NOT say that this is a good lens with a reasonable price tag. It seems like you can't make that statement either. It is almost twice as expensive as the competition yet you say that "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." Should you really have such an opinion of a lens that costs over $700?

I wouldn't have seemed so harsh in this response except that I resent my experience being chalked up to "psychological reasons" as if I went through all the hassle of returing these lenses because I was subliminally affected by posts I read on some message board.

BTW, none of my defective lenses were returned for BF or FF problems. All three of them were optical aberration defects, so its not the camera, or the photographer, or the method, etc.

Undoubtedly you had legitimately bad copies, so this probably doesn't apply to you, but I still
suspect that a certain percentage of 'bad' lenses out there are actually performing to spec.
This is based on my experience with my 2nd lens and my subsequent, more thorough testing
of my 3rd lens.

I think the OP makes an interesting and worthwhile point, but it certainly doesn't apply to every
or even the majority of 'bad' experiences. I think I saw somewhere else months ago, maybe on
dpreview, where a poster wondered if there wasn't a form of 'hysteria' (as he put it )
associated with this lens. After I read that, I began to wonder the same thing.

But if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you, simple as that. There are a lot of bad
copies out there; I know, I ran into one.


.

[PentaxPoke]

The DA*16-50 has made me a bitter, angry man.

[Imagination4]

I was fortunate to get a good copy on my first try. I bought it at a store (aden camera in Toronto) that let me try it out and said I could exchange it if I wanted to.

I really like this lens a lot for travel and walk around

here's 2 shots all handheld while walking with my wife (so no tripods or extra time composing, just snaps, the waterfront while on a ferry while it was docking) one at 16mm and 2.8 (the weakest combo for the lens, and soft if you zoom in and pixel-peep, but at full view still a nice snap)

augustmoon,

Based upon the 2 images that you posted (and without access to the full size image files), I would agree with you that you seem to have gotten your hands on a good copy (something I have yet to be able to do). At this scale, the leaves on both sides/borders in the 1st image appear to have equivalent IQ, and I'd say the same for the buildings in the second image.

[rfortson]

Mine has a little softness/blurred edges.

Actually, I took this shot this weekend handheld. I haven't really noticed any problems with my 16-50, but then I haven't really looked that hard. I'm pretty satisfied with my shots taken with it.