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
11-09-2008, 11:23 AM   #1006
RaduA
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Sean Nelson Quote
Look no further than the FA 31mm review to see that his K10D tests do show excellent border performance if the lens can deliver it.
It's a FF lens so the "borders" on that lens are by no means "borders" you're still in the middle of the lens with an APS-C sensor. Of course it's a prime with less elements/groups and no zooming mechanism at a more convenient focal lenght than extreme wide (16mm) and even more than that if Klaus would of tested the DA* @ 31 or 35mm you may'd of get some pretty interesting results IMVHO.

Regards,
Radu

11-09-2008, 01:10 PM   #1007
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
As a new owner of an (apparently*) good 16-50, I have to say I'm certainly not looking back. It's a damn nice lens, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be everything I wanted it to be.


*I say apparently because I haven't shot a focus chart or brick wall yet, but some everyday test shots seemed fine
11-09-2008, 01:38 PM   #1008
Veteran Member
sewebster's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 533
Explanation of what borders/extreme means, plus more:
Photozone Lens Test FAQ

DA* may not have better image quality (than say 16-45), but it does have better build quality, weather sealing, SDM, f/2.8. Some of these things are important to some people.
11-09-2008, 02:43 PM   #1009
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,535
QuoteOriginally posted by sewebster Quote
Explanation of what borders/extreme means, plus more:
Photozone Lens Test FAQ

DA* may not have better image quality (than say 16-45), but it does have better build quality, weather sealing, SDM, f/2.8. Some of these things are important to some people.
I appreciate the weather sealing of my 16-50; I appreciate the f/2.8 aperture; but I really appreciate 16-50 as opposed to 16-45. The 5 mm more was the final decision maker. If the 17-70 had been out, I am not at all sure I would not have that lens instead.

11-09-2008, 02:46 PM   #1010
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
My 16-50 was simply superb. It's hard to imagine how a 16-50 2.8 lens could really be better.

Of course, it was my 3rd copy - 1st was bad, 2nd probably wasn't but I was paranoid, 3rd was blow-me-away good for a zoom.

Happy Happy 16-50



.
11-09-2008, 04:26 PM   #1011
RaduA
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by sewebster Quote
Explanation of what borders/extreme means, plus more:
Photozone Lens Test FAQ

DA* may not have better image quality (than say 16-45), but it does have better build quality, weather sealing, SDM, f/2.8. Some of these things are important to some people.
Thanks for the link!

Regards,
Radu
11-09-2008, 07:06 PM   #1012
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
QuoteOriginally posted by dylansalt Quote
My reasoning is this;

A DA* lens should be near perfect - period - on any Pentax dslr - especially in this day and age.

Its because of all these type of reviews that I continue shooting with the kit zoom - which has literally zero issues

I think the better zoom lens in the wide arena is the 12-24 IMHO and then partnered to a 50-135 and possibly throwing in one of the prime ltds to cover in between 24-50.

d
If you are using a K20D, you should give the DA*1650 a try. I guess you won't be disappointed
11-09-2008, 10:45 PM   #1013
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,535
Why I like my DA* 16-50

Here are five shots (full size jpgs on my Flickr site) that demonstrate that I have a good copy of the lens, and that demonstrates why I like it.

Bathing ladies hanging in our front window, backlit. My wife Claire crocheted these. Note the corner to corner of this image.



High Level Bridge, Lethbridge, Alberta



Bar U Ranch National Historic Site, Alberta



Fort Steele Heritage Town, BC. This iron cat in the window shows the lens in difficult lighting.



Here is the interior of a school house in Fort Steele.



11-09-2008, 11:28 PM   #1014
Veteran Member
nulla's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,560
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
My 16-50 was simply superb. It's hard to imagine how a 16-50 2.8 lens could really be better.

Of course, it was my 3rd copy - 1st was bad, 2nd probably wasn't but I was paranoid, 3rd was blow-me-away good for a zoom.

Happy Happy 16-50



.

Agree fully, I could not be happier with mine. I took the plunge and purchased from the states even with the known issues of bad copies. Struck it lucky first up and it has held back my earlier desires for one of the FA limited primes in this range due to results gained to date with this great zoom






Neil
11-10-2008, 09:21 AM   #1015
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
"Ouch" is right. How many other Pentax lenses have tested right on the border of "poor" to "fair" at 50mm? Especially a "*" lens. This is what several of us have been saying. I'm certain we'll see a post soon that says "but it's weather sealed!"
but it's weather sealed!
11-19-2008, 10:16 AM   #1016
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5
Graph Distortion

I think the sharpness performance of this lens is somewhat distorted by the graphs describing it.

Comparing it to the Tamron 17-50mm reviewed at the same place, look at the resolution first at f/2.8 at 16mm and 17mm:

Pentax 16mm:
C: 2159
B: 1614
E: 1447

Tamron 17mm:
C: 1923
B: 1842
E: 1691

The Tamron is obviously better here at the borders and extremes while the Pentax is sharper in the center. The trend continues, but the gap tightens slightly at the borders and edges and gets much sharper in the center for the Pentax at f/4 (and the gap widens between Pentax and Tamron at the center, 2354 to 2050).

By the time you get to f5.6, where both lenses seem to be at their overall sharpest you have:

Pentax 16mm:
C: 2328
B: 2027
E: 1917

Tamron 17mm:
C: 2087
B: 1928
E: 1793

All I wanted to point out is that the Pentax is much sharper in the center, and still sharper than the Tamron all the way out through the extremes. It is roughly as sharp at the extremes as the Tamron at the border.

The problem is that the Pentax is so much sharper at the center than it is anywhere else that the graph becomes seriously tilted. The Tamron is more consistent, and so produces a better graph, but that doesn't mean it is actually sharper.

This doesn't take into account any other differences, such as distortion, CA, etc. or other focal lengths. It would be remiss not to mention that the Pentax border resolution wide open at 50mm was horrid (1158).

Last edited by telackeypentax; 11-19-2008 at 10:32 AM.
11-20-2008, 09:07 PM   #1017
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
Pentax SMC-DA* 16-50mm F2.8ED AL [IF] SDM

Hello there!

I just received this lens today, in the mail.
I was very glad to finally get it, and I still am, however there is one thing that concerns me.
The lens seems to be functioning properly, but there is this focusing ring that can rotate forever, past the markings
on the focusing window. I mean once the focusing ring reaches the lower or superior limit it can still go on for as
long as you may want to rotate it either direction, even though the markings on the focusing window keep still at
either end of the scale.

I wonder is that's a construction flaw? should I be worried about it, or is it normal? because I didn't see that
happening with any other lens that I have. This is the most expensive lens that I own to date.

Thank you!
Diamax
11-20-2008, 09:16 PM   #1018
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52
its normal
11-20-2008, 09:19 PM   #1019
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
Thank you Avian!
11-29-2008, 09:25 AM   #1020
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
DA* 16-50mm on the way...

Nothing of interest here really...

The "How many lenses do you own?" thread made me say, "How many lenses do I use?", and the answer was - far less than I own. So thinking that pentax glass and weather sealing sounded very appealing, I decided to sell off a good chunk of my quiver and get my first * lens. Went over the threshold last night and ordered one from Amazon...

Now would be a good time to encourage me that they really have worked out the bugs, and it's a worthy lens etc. .
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 07:39 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