Question for 16-50mm owners

Andrew Faires · 11-21-2007, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by gnaztee

Hi Benjamin,

I was ready to buy the DA 14, 21, and 40, but I'm thinking I can go for the 16-50 instead. I wouldn't need the 14, as 16 would be wide enough for what I do, so the cost of the 16-50 compared to the three primes is favorable. In your opinion, would an enthusiast find the image sharpness and overall quality negligible between the 16-50 and primes, or is there still a clear difference?

Thanks!
Todd

Just some loose comparisons I've done between my 14mm and 16-50mm show that they're very comparable in image quality. The 16-50 is a bit sharper in the center at all apertures and slightly more so in the corners....well, I only checked one corner - so don't take this as gospel

I also like the colours the 16-50 produces better than the 14mm. The 14mm has a warmish cast when doing a side-by-side comparison.

Build on both are excellent. I do like the metal body of the 14mm, but the 16-50 feels just as solid.

The 16-50 dwarfs the 14mm - and the 14mm isn't small to begin with.

I don't have the other lenses which you're looking at, but I also compared the 16-50 to my 43mm ltd. The 16-50 does well, but the 43mm outshines it at all apertures, corner to center to corner. That said, I wouldn't not use the 16-50 at that focal length as it's still yielding plenty of detail.

Hope this helps

gnaztee · 11-21-2007, 01:45 PM

I prefer prints in the 11x14 to 16x20 range (sorry for metric folks), do you think I'll notice a difference there? I don't "pixel peep," I just want them to look fantastic on my (and others') walls, even when looked at somewhat closely. I realize this is all very subjective, I just like the idea of the flexibility in use and the cost of the 16-50 if it's comparable (not necessarily EQUAL) to the primes.

Thanks again,
Todd

Andrew Faires · 11-21-2007, 02:47 PM

No problem, Todd.

As for printing, I honestly can't say as I've never printed a photo that size....yet

(an LF printer is on the list right after the 50-135). If I was to guess, I'd say that generally you'd be fine (I don't think I'd try something in a 16x20 that was shot at 16mm and f/2.8, but I wouldn't shy away from it at f/5.6).

benjikan · 11-21-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by gnaztee

Hi Benjamin,

I was ready to buy the DA 14, 21, and 40, but I'm thinking I can go for the 16-50 instead. I wouldn't need the 14, as 16 would be wide enough for what I do, so the cost of the 16-50 compared to the three primes is favorable. In your opinion, would an enthusiast find the image sharpness and overall quality negligible between the 16-50 and primes, or is there still a clear difference?

Thanks!
Todd

Hello Todd;

I cannot speak for the 14, as I do not own one. As to the 21 and 40, I would say that the 16-50 f2.8 as with the primes would be optimum at 4.5 to 5.6 and above. In that case I totally agree with your logic and in your position and would go for the 16-50. In fact I will use it for my next up and coming Fashion shoot...

Ben

gnaztee · 11-21-2007, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

Hello Todd;

I cannot speak for the 14, as I do not own one. As to the 21 and 40, I would say that the 16-50 f2.8 as with the primes would be optimum at 4.5 to 5.6 and above. In that case I totally agree with your logic and in your position and would go for the 16-50. In fact I will use it for my next up and coming Fashion shoot...

Ben

...can't argue with that answer! Looks like I'll be going with the 16-50 and the da 70. Thanks for the reply.

And thanks for your follow up too Andrew!

jgredline · 11-21-2007, 11:19 PM

I will be picking up this lens on Friday and then I done... For now

benjikan · 11-23-2007, 01:24 PM

Here is a shot with the 16-50 at f2.8 iso 250 at 15th of a second off center.

View Large Here:

User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous

Attached Images

benjikan · 11-25-2007, 02:55 PM

Look...I have had some time to spend with this lens. The build quality is excellent. It is good at 2.8 from 16 to 50 mm. Stop down one to two stops and it is stunning. Here is a sample of a portrait I did at my local Pizza Restaurant of "Adel" who has been there for ions.

Judge for yourself.

Here is the large version:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/1074/1_Adel.jpg

Stratman · 11-25-2007, 05:32 PM

Looks quite sharp to me Ben, I just wish i could afford one

Peter Zack · 11-25-2007, 05:35 PM

Very good to hear Ben, I have one on the way and should have it shortly. That image is sharp indeed. Actually almost too sharp as a tight portrait lens as you can see every blemish. Seems Pentax has cleared up the QC issues with the first product run when users were reporting some variable results..

When you took the shot I assume you had the hood on. Do I see a shadow from the hood/flash?

**Ray Pulley** · 11-25-2007, 06:01 PM

I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow!

Saturated and very sharp. I have all of the limited primes and the FA 50mm F1.4 and as far as I am concerned, you give up very little when you reach for this lens.

It focuses very well in low light and has been very accurate so far with little hunting when focusing.

Here is the larger version:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg

Ray

Buddha Jones · 11-25-2007, 06:03 PM

Every skin blemish and discolorization, the hairs in his ears, every fiber in his shirt, I think I can even tell what he had for lunch.

benjikan · 11-25-2007, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Very good to hear Ben, I have one on the way and should have it shortly. That image is sharp indeed. Actually almost too sharp as a tight portrait lens as you can see every blemish. Seems Pentax has cleared up the QC issues with the first product run when users were reporting some variable results..

When you took the shot I assume you had the hood on. Do I see a shadow from the hood/flash?

I actually removed the lens hood. I don't see the shadow you are referring to...OOPS.

benjikan · 11-25-2007, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow!

Saturated and very sharp. I have all of the limited primes and the FA 50mm F1.4 and as far as I am concerned, you give up very little when you reach for this lens.

It focuses very well in low light and has been very accurate so far with little hunting when focusing.

Here is the larger version:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg

Ray

That is a "ludicrously" beautiful image. you captured the moment magnificently...BRAVO!!!

benjikan · 11-25-2007, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

Every skin blemish and discolorization, the hairs in his ears, every fiber in his shirt, I think I can even tell what he had for lunch.

The original is much better. To get this online I needed to save the JPEG at 7 out of 12 in PS. Rather than full 12 of 12. There are some Jpeg artifact on this one that are not evident on the original.

Ben

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

11-21-2007, 01:45 PM	#32
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Thanks for that Andrew! I prefer prints in the 11x14 to 16x20 range (sorry for metric folks), do you think I'll notice a difference there? I don't "pixel peep," I just want them to look fantastic on my (and others') walls, even when looked at somewhat closely. I realize this is all very subjective, I just like the idea of the flexibility in use and the cost of the 16-50 if it's comparable (not necessarily EQUAL) to the primes. Thanks again, Todd

11-21-2007, 10:33 PM	#35
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Well... Originally posted by benjikan Hello Todd; I cannot speak for the 14, as I do not own one. As to the 21 and 40, I would say that the 16-50 f2.8 as with the primes would be optimum at 4.5 to 5.6 and above. In that case I totally agree with your logic and in your position and would go for the 16-50. In fact I will use it for my next up and coming Fashion shoot... Ben ...can't argue with that answer! Looks like I'll be going with the 16-50 and the da 70. Thanks for the reply. And thanks for your follow up too Andrew!

11-23-2007, 01:24 PM	#37
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	16-50 at 16mm f2.8 15th of a second Here is a shot with the 16-50 at f2.8 iso 250 at 15th of a second off center. View Large Here: User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous Attached Images

11-25-2007, 02:55 PM	#38
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	How Good is the Pentax 16-50 Star Lens Look...I have had some time to spend with this lens. The build quality is excellent. It is good at 2.8 from 16 to 50 mm. Stop down one to two stops and it is stunning. Here is a sample of a portrait I did at my local Pizza Restaurant of "Adel" who has been there for ions. Judge for yourself. Here is the large version: https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/1074/1_Adel.jpg Attached Images

11-21-2007, 01:29 PM	#31
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	Originally posted by gnaztee Hi Benjamin, I was ready to buy the DA 14, 21, and 40, but I'm thinking I can go for the 16-50 instead. I wouldn't need the 14, as 16 would be wide enough for what I do, so the cost of the 16-50 compared to the three primes is favorable. In your opinion, would an enthusiast find the image sharpness and overall quality negligible between the 16-50 and primes, or is there still a clear difference? Thanks! Todd Just some loose comparisons I've done between my 14mm and 16-50mm show that they're very comparable in image quality. The 16-50 is a bit sharper in the center at all apertures and slightly more so in the corners....well, I only checked one corner - so don't take this as gospel I also like the colours the 16-50 produces better than the 14mm. The 14mm has a warmish cast when doing a side-by-side comparison. Build on both are excellent. I do like the metal body of the 14mm, but the 16-50 feels just as solid. The 16-50 dwarfs the 14mm - and the 14mm isn't small to begin with. I don't have the other lenses which you're looking at, but I also compared the 16-50 to my 43mm ltd. The 16-50 does well, but the 43mm outshines it at all apertures, corner to center to corner. That said, I wouldn't not use the 16-50 at that focal length as it's still yielding plenty of detail. Hope this helps

11-21-2007, 02:47 PM	#33
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	No problem, Todd. As for printing, I honestly can't say as I've never printed a photo that size....yet (an LF printer is on the list right after the 50-135). If I was to guess, I'd say that generally you'd be fine (I don't think I'd try something in a 16x20 that was shot at 16mm and f/2.8, but I wouldn't shy away from it at f/5.6).

11-21-2007, 05:18 PM	#34
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by gnaztee Hi Benjamin, I was ready to buy the DA 14, 21, and 40, but I'm thinking I can go for the 16-50 instead. I wouldn't need the 14, as 16 would be wide enough for what I do, so the cost of the 16-50 compared to the three primes is favorable. In your opinion, would an enthusiast find the image sharpness and overall quality negligible between the 16-50 and primes, or is there still a clear difference? Thanks! Todd Hello Todd; I cannot speak for the 14, as I do not own one. As to the 21 and 40, I would say that the 16-50 f2.8 as with the primes would be optimum at 4.5 to 5.6 and above. In that case I totally agree with your logic and in your position and would go for the 16-50. In fact I will use it for my next up and coming Fashion shoot... Ben

11-21-2007, 11:19 PM	#36
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	I will be picking up this lens on Friday and then I done... For now

11-25-2007, 05:32 PM	#39
Stratman Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,464	Looks quite sharp to me Ben, I just wish i could afford one

11-25-2007, 05:35 PM	#40
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Very good to hear Ben, I have one on the way and should have it shortly. That image is sharp indeed. Actually almost too sharp as a tight portrait lens as you can see every blemish. Seems Pentax has cleared up the QC issues with the first product run when users were reporting some variable results.. When you took the shot I assume you had the hood on. Do I see a shadow from the hood/flash?

11-25-2007, 06:01 PM	#41
Ray Pulley Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Fallon Nevada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	I agree I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow! Saturated and very sharp. I have all of the limited primes and the FA 50mm F1.4 and as far as I am concerned, you give up very little when you reach for this lens. It focuses very well in low light and has been very accurate so far with little hunting when focusing. Here is the larger version: https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg Ray Last edited by Ray Pulley; 01-16-2008 at 11:09 AM.

11-25-2007, 06:03 PM	#42
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	Every skin blemish and discolorization, the hairs in his ears, every fiber in his shirt, I think I can even tell what he had for lunch.

11-25-2007, 06:04 PM	#43
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by Peter Zack Very good to hear Ben, I have one on the way and should have it shortly. That image is sharp indeed. Actually almost too sharp as a tight portrait lens as you can see every blemish. Seems Pentax has cleared up the QC issues with the first product run when users were reporting some variable results.. When you took the shot I assume you had the hood on. Do I see a shadow from the hood/flash? I actually removed the lens hood. I don't see the shadow you are referring to...OOPS.

11-25-2007, 06:07 PM	#44
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by Ray Pulley I finally had the chance to shoot some portraits with the DA* 16-50 and all I can say is: Wow! Saturated and very sharp. I have all of the limited primes and the FA 50mm F1.4 and as far as I am concerned, you give up very little when you reach for this lens. It focuses very well in low light and has been very accurate so far with little hunting when focusing. Here is the larger version: https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/969/1__IGP2100small.jpg Ray That is a "ludicrously" beautiful image. you captured the moment magnificently...BRAVO!!!

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 & 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

11-25-2007, 06:15 PM	#45
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by Buddha Jones Every skin blemish and discolorization, the hairs in his ears, every fiber in his shirt, I think I can even tell what he had for lunch. The original is much better. To get this online I needed to save the JPEG at 7 out of 12 in PS. Rather than full 12 of 12. There are some Jpeg artifact on this one that are not evident on the original. Ben