Question for 16-50mm owners

TanGU · 10-10-2008, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by dazman

To filter or not to filter and if to filter which one?
I say "no filter". Use a hood, save your money, get insurance instead and have better IQ.

Argh, i knew i had answer like that... so please, the topic isn't that at all. I choose deliberately to buy a filter, let me do that

I don't want to be rude, but guys...just answer to the topic of the thread please, it will be more useful

thanks,

SpecialK · 10-10-2008, 06:19 AM

Here are all the answers :-)

Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

Wheatfield · 10-10-2008, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by TanGU

hi guys,

I just ordered my Pentax 16-50mm f2.8. I'd like to order my Filter now, but the store i ordered it had only Sigma and 2 others el cheapo filter. So i need a good clean 77mm filter.

Hoya, B&W, Sigma ? What did you put on your 16-50mm ?

thanks!

If you are going to put a filter on the thing (I wouldn't), then either a B+W or Heliopan will cause the least damage to your images.
Whatever you buy, make sure it is multicoated.

tybeck · 10-10-2008, 09:19 AM

Thom Hogen makes some good points about filters and it's just a well written piece. He highlights that if you are going to spend lots of money for the least distorting glass possible in a lens, why would you put another piece of glass in front of it that would degrade the picture? A comment about window glass with a spray on coating is made if memory serves. A corollary to this point is "good filters aren't cheap." The also article gives some good tips for landscape photography and which filters in his experience actually help your shot and might be worth the money.

TanGU · 10-10-2008, 09:28 AM

i know i am off topic, but can you tell me what filter did you put on your 16-50 and reply on my post here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-accessories/38986-best-filt...guys-have.html

thanks

wlachan · 10-10-2008, 10:28 AM

HOYA 77mm UV(0) SUPER HMC MULTI-COATED HAZE FILTER NEW

Matt Miller · 10-10-2008, 10:34 AM

If you must use a filter, and we all do under certain circumstances, then make it a good one.

TanGU · 10-10-2008, 11:58 AM

Your link show the B+W 0.10, insn't better to have the 0.07 ? 77E CLEAR MRC (007M) - Schneider Optics

Matt Miller · 10-10-2008, 12:19 PM

Yes, that looks like a good filter too.

Isaac314 · 10-10-2008, 02:17 PM

Heres someone using said combination, an excellent photographer with loads of shots in PPG

Flickr: Jan Paul Yap's stuff tagged with da1650

Lots of post processing but you can tell that the lens is capable of plenty of detail and quality

Votesh · 10-17-2008, 01:13 AM

I got the DA* 16-50mm a few weeks ago, and I'm happy with my copy ... aside from some pretty horrendous PF. It's really only bad enough to bother me at the wide end, especially at 16mm. The problem persists through the aperture range at 16mm in high contrast situations, and the PF can be 5+ pixels wide. Sometimes it can be removed with Lightroom fairly well, but at times it can just be too much.
Here's an example of about the worst I've had with it:
Flickr Photo Download: PF
Look the top corners. The picture is just converted from RAW to highest quality JPEG in Lightroom.

I know that at 16mm flaws will be at their worst, and PF can often be avoided or corrected. But this is some of (if not absolutely) the worst PF I've ever seen.

So, my question is, do others with this lens experience the same degree of PF in similar situations, or is it something that might warrant sending the lens in?

Aside from the PF this lens is definitely a winner.

nulla · 10-17-2008, 01:47 AM

I have never experienced anything like that

I had a couple of shots that I noticed it on but it was after magnification that I noticed it and it was steel girders against a bright sky and nowhere near as dramatic as your example

Neil

philmorley · 10-17-2008, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Votesh

I got the DA* 16-50mm a few weeks ago, and I'm happy with my copy ... aside from some pretty horrendous PF. It's really only bad enough to bother me at the wide end, especially at 16mm. The problem persists through the aperture range at 16mm in high contrast situations, and the PF can be 5+ pixels wide. Sometimes it can be removed with Lightroom fairly well, but at times it can just be too much.
Here's an example of about the worst I've had with it:
Flickr Photo Download: PF
Look the top corners. The picture is just converted from RAW to highest quality JPEG in Lightroom.

I know that at 16mm flaws will be at their worst, and PF can often be avoided or corrected. But this is some of (if not absolutely) the worst PF I've ever seen.

So, my question is, do others with this lens experience the same degree of PF in similar situations, or is it something that might warrant sending the lens in?

Aside from the PF this lens is definitely a winner.

not much help but thats about what I get with the 10-17mm or either of the 16-45's I had

Votesh · 10-17-2008, 03:18 AM

Well, it was about the worst conditions I could have shot in. It was about 4:30PM and I was shooting roughly southwest, which is about where the sun would have been. The other shots I have that have shown similar PF were in similar conditions.

Also, i just thought of this but it could also be exacerbated by the fact that I use a filter on the lens. It's a Hoya PRO1 Digital UV filter so it should be pretty good, but it's obviously not gonna help the IQ any. I think I'll have to go out today without the filter and see if things are improved any.

If I get some more comments saying that it's much worse than others have experienced I guess I'll have to see what I can do to get it fixed. I just don't want to have to send it in and then not have a large part of my normal shooting range covered for a few weeks.

Votesh · 10-17-2008, 03:58 AM

Here's another, less contrasty, shot at 16mm with little PF that I can see.
Flickr Photo Download: Gap in between

I just don't know what to think. Every time I tell myself that I'm just over analyzing the pictures, I see one that appears good zoomed out, and then I look at it at 100% and am completely discouraged by the PF.

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

10-17-2008, 01:13 AM	#941
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	*DA 16-50mm Purple Fringing** I got the DA* 16-50mm a few weeks ago, and I'm happy with my copy ... aside from some pretty horrendous PF. It's really only bad enough to bother me at the wide end, especially at 16mm. The problem persists through the aperture range at 16mm in high contrast situations, and the PF can be 5+ pixels wide. Sometimes it can be removed with Lightroom fairly well, but at times it can just be too much. Here's an example of about the worst I've had with it: Flickr Photo Download: PF Look the top corners. The picture is just converted from RAW to highest quality JPEG in Lightroom. I know that at 16mm flaws will be at their worst, and PF can often be avoided or corrected. But this is some of (if not absolutely) the worst PF I've ever seen. So, my question is, do others with this lens experience the same degree of PF in similar situations, or is it something that might warrant sending the lens in? Aside from the PF this lens is definitely a winner.

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

10-10-2008, 06:08 AM	#931
TanGU Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Longueuil, QC Photos: Gallery Posts: 90	Originally posted by dazman To filter or not to filter and if to filter which one? I say "no filter". Use a hood, save your money, get insurance instead and have better IQ. Argh, i knew i had answer like that... so please, the topic isn't that at all. I choose deliberately to buy a filter, let me do that I don't want to be rude, but guys...just answer to the topic of the thread please, it will be more useful thanks,

10-10-2008, 06:19 AM	#932
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Here are all the answers :-) Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

10-10-2008, 06:52 AM	#933
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by TanGU hi guys, I just ordered my Pentax 16-50mm f2.8. I'd like to order my Filter now, but the store i ordered it had only Sigma and 2 others el cheapo filter. So i need a good clean 77mm filter. Hoya, B&W, Sigma ? What did you put on your 16-50mm ? thanks! If you are going to put a filter on the thing (I wouldn't), then either a B+W or Heliopan will cause the least damage to your images. Whatever you buy, make sure it is multicoated.

10-10-2008, 09:19 AM	#934
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452	Thom Hogen makes some good points about filters and it's just a well written piece. He highlights that if you are going to spend lots of money for the least distorting glass possible in a lens, why would you put another piece of glass in front of it that would degrade the picture? A comment about window glass with a spray on coating is made if memory serves. A corollary to this point is "good filters aren't cheap." The also article gives some good tips for landscape photography and which filters in his experience actually help your shot and might be worth the money.

10-10-2008, 09:28 AM	#935
TanGU Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Longueuil, QC Photos: Gallery Posts: 90	i know i am off topic, but can you tell me what filter did you put on your 16-50 and reply on my post here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-camera-accessories/38986-best-filt...guys-have.html thanks

10-10-2008, 10:28 AM	#936
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	HOYA 77mm UV(0) SUPER HMC MULTI-COATED HAZE FILTER NEW

10-10-2008, 10:34 AM	#937
Matt Miller Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cambridge, Iowa Photos: Gallery Posts: 339	If you must use a filter, and we all do under certain circumstances, then make it a good one.

10-10-2008, 11:58 AM	#938
TanGU Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Longueuil, QC Photos: Gallery Posts: 90	Your link show the B+W 0.10, insn't better to have the 0.07 ? 77E CLEAR MRC (007M) - Schneider Optics

10-10-2008, 12:19 PM	#939
Matt Miller Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cambridge, Iowa Photos: Gallery Posts: 339	Yes, that looks like a good filter too.

10-10-2008, 02:17 PM	#940
Isaac314 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Heres someone using said combination, an excellent photographer with loads of shots in PPG Flickr: Jan Paul Yap's stuff tagged with da1650 Lots of post processing but you can tell that the lens is capable of plenty of detail and quality

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2008, 01:47 AM	#942
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	I have never experienced anything like that I had a couple of shots that I noticed it on but it was after magnification that I noticed it and it was steel girders against a bright sky and nowhere near as dramatic as your example Neil

10-17-2008, 02:02 AM	#943
philmorley Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia Posts: 472	Originally posted by Votesh I got the DA* 16-50mm a few weeks ago, and I'm happy with my copy ... aside from some pretty horrendous PF. It's really only bad enough to bother me at the wide end, especially at 16mm. The problem persists through the aperture range at 16mm in high contrast situations, and the PF can be 5+ pixels wide. Sometimes it can be removed with Lightroom fairly well, but at times it can just be too much. Here's an example of about the worst I've had with it: Flickr Photo Download: PF Look the top corners. The picture is just converted from RAW to highest quality JPEG in Lightroom. I know that at 16mm flaws will be at their worst, and PF can often be avoided or corrected. But this is some of (if not absolutely) the worst PF I've ever seen. So, my question is, do others with this lens experience the same degree of PF in similar situations, or is it something that might warrant sending the lens in? Aside from the PF this lens is definitely a winner. not much help but thats about what I get with the 10-17mm or either of the 16-45's I had

10-17-2008, 03:18 AM	#944
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	Well, it was about the worst conditions I could have shot in. It was about 4:30PM and I was shooting roughly southwest, which is about where the sun would have been. The other shots I have that have shown similar PF were in similar conditions. Also, i just thought of this but it could also be exacerbated by the fact that I use a filter on the lens. It's a Hoya PRO1 Digital UV filter so it should be pretty good, but it's obviously not gonna help the IQ any. I think I'll have to go out today without the filter and see if things are improved any. If I get some more comments saying that it's much worse than others have experienced I guess I'll have to see what I can do to get it fixed. I just don't want to have to send it in and then not have a large part of my normal shooting range covered for a few weeks.

10-17-2008, 03:58 AM	#945
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	Here's another, less contrasty, shot at 16mm with little PF that I can see. Flickr Photo Download: Gap in between I just don't know what to think. Every time I tell myself that I'm just over analyzing the pictures, I see one that appears good zoomed out, and then I look at it at 100% and am completely discouraged by the PF.