[dugrant153]

Wow... guess I'm not the only one who was not entirely impressed with the DA* 16-50.
As I mentioned before, though, I REALLY want to justify buying this lens because most of the Pentax stuff I bought has been stellar in quality, and I've always wanted to get a really really nice replacement for my kit lens (18-55) or even put all my main primes into one DA* zoom lens.

Here are two images of the same subject, but using my Pentax SMC-M 50mm prime and the 50mm tele end of the DA* 16-50 (both at F2.8). Note that this was not a very detailed comparison. I merely just took two shots of the same thing to see if the images would compare. I even accidentally left a skylight filter on the SMC-M 50mm prime! Oops. Note that the images below are crops of the original image.

When I took a shot with the DA* 16-50, and saw how blurry it was, I thought that maybe it was my camera causing the problem. But then I take a picture with the Pentax SMC-M 50 and got results that were actually quite a bit better! See below:



Pentax SMC-M 50MM




Pentax DA* 16-50



I would love to see people post pics of the DA* 16-50 doing its thing (help me justify buying this lens!). But right now, after two copies giving 'decent' (but not spectacular) images, I'm going to have to stick to my primes.

[creampuff]

dugrant153, there is noticeable camera shake in the second image.

Unless you can do an objective comparison with camera on tripod and aiming at the same subject, distance and exposure setting, such "comparisons" are actually quite meaningless.

[roentarre]

Wow... guess I'm not the only one who was not entirely impressed with the DA* 16-50.

I would love to see people post pics of the DA* 16-50 doing its thing (help me justify buying this lens!). But right now, after two copies giving 'decent' (but not spectacular) images, I'm going to have to stick to my primes.

I aggree that Da* 16-50 is not as sharp as any of the primes or even comparing to some sigma zoom like 10-22

Somehow, this zoom deserves its place as a great walk around zoom during travel. It is definitely way better than my canon 16-35 f2.8 or 16-40 f4 and it is waterproof!! I walk with this lens proudly in the rain for the last 2 weeks or so.

Its high contrast and rich colour are really strongest I have ever seen. (That might increase the sharpness to a degree) Currently I am switching back to my baby primes to use since using primes is really my passion.

I had heaps of shots using Da* 16-50 f2.8 (a good copy coming from Stephen through marketplace sale). Some are processed and you can have a look how useful it is especially when you have a busy trip with not so great weather ...

Mainly shot at f8 (Since SR really gave me a lot of room to use higher aperture)



















shot at f3.5




I got 60 gig of shots using this zoom. Sure that there are some shots worthwhile. A good zoom to own if time is of essence in travel. Otherwise I would just play around with primes in spare time when not travelling!

Regards

James

[Maxington]

I aggree that Da* 16-50 is not as sharp as any of the primes or even comparing to some sigma zoom like 10-22

Somehow, this zoom deserves its place as a great walk around zoom during travel. It is definitely way better than my canon 16-35 f2.8 or 16-40 f4 and it is waterproof!! I walk with this lens proudly in the rain for the last 2 weeks or so.

Its high contrast and rich colour are really strongest I have ever seen. (That might increase the sharpness to a degree) Currently I am switching back to my baby primes to use since using primes is really my passion.


James

I agree with its contrast and colour, the only lens I own thats near it is the Pentax 100mm macro. I have a bunch of shots from holiday that I'm extremely happy with. And its definitely sharper than my Tamron 28-75.

People seem to be ignoring all its good points with this fixation on f2.8 sharpness. Theres quite a bit more to a lens than its sharpness wide open.

[roentarre]

People seem to be ignoring all its good points with this fixation on f2.8 sharpness. Theres quite a bit more to a lens than its sharpness wide open.

None of my shots are sharpened at all.

I did use the zoom wide open in some of the food food photos and some abstract stuff. The sharpness issue does not worry me unless I want to print it 8X12

It is like a lot of users love to call Da14 crap because it is not as sharp as Da 12-24 at f4 ...

[Peter Zack]

Yes I know that many have gotten a sharp version of this lens but I'm not talking about sharpness in my post. I'm talking about the lenses ability to focus on the subject. This lens can't focus, particularly when the subject is within 10-15 feet.

The lens I have is actually quite sharp if it's stopped down, so the DOF can cover the back focused issue (get the thing I'm focused on within the DOF). And if it was slightly front focused, then that wouldn't be as much of an issue either. But I took a fair number of shots with the lens on a tripod and my sample shots that I posted, were at 1/500th. So a tripod would make very little difference.

The lens is quite useless at any focal length when at f2.8 or f4.0 at close quarters to the subject. So since I want it for indoor shots and a bit of 'walking in the woods' partly for it's close focus ability, then this lens will be no good for any of that. I'd be much better off with a 16-45 f4 and add 1 stop in the ISO to get better results in low light.

Very disappointed to spend close to $1000.00 and get this kind of result from a lens that is supposed to be the new breed of "Premiere lenses" . And I know I'm not the only one that has had this issue with this model. I just thought Pentax would have cleaned up their act on the QC for this lens by now....

have a look at my post above to see the sample pics I posted to show the issue.

[creampuff]

roentarre, lovely colours in your shots.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is my impression that the issue of back or front focusing lie more with the calibration of the camera than the lens.

[roentarre]

The lens is quite useless at any focal length when at f2.8 or f4.0 at close quarters to the subject. So since I want it for indoor shots and a bit of 'walking in the woods' partly for it's close focus ability, then this lens will be no good for any of that. I'd be much better off with a 16-45 f4 and add 1 stop in the ISO to get better results in low light.

Actually you are right about this. I feel a bit of mal focusing from time to time using this range of aperture.

p.s. I was not meant to be directing at you (always respecting your answer and reply).

[Peter Zack]

Actually you are right about this. I feel a bit of mal focusing from time to time using this range of aperture.

p.s. I was not meant to be directing at you (always respecting your answer and reply).

No offense taken from anyone. I'm just posting my experience with this lens. Maybe someone like Ben that has Pentax's ear could report the inconsistancies that users are having with this lens and fix the QC issue and /or issue a recall for users that think they have a problem with their copy.

As I have 15 other lenses some of which are FA and others Limiteds and the lens shows the same issue on both bodies, I suspect it's a lens issue more than a body issue. I've opened a few AF lenses before and they have programing chips inside them so I assume they can be programmed for focus calibration. There have been plenty of reports of this issue from a number of users and getting a good copy seems to be hit and miss. I don't want to send in both bodies for calibration and risk having them showing issues with my other glass, some of which are long out of warranty and would cost big $$$ to have fixed back to normal.

roentarre, lovely colours in your shots.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is my impression that the issue of back or front focusing lie more with the calibration of the camera than the lens.

[benjikan]

No offense taken from anyone. I'm just posting my experience with this lens. Maybe someone like Ben that has Pentax's ear could report the inconsistancies that users are having with this lens and fix the QC issue and /or issue a recall for users that think they have a problem with their copy.

As I have 15 other lenses some of which are FA and others Limiteds and the lens shows the same issue on both bodies, I suspect it's a lens issue more than a body issue. I've opened a few AF lenses before and they have programing chips inside them so I assume they can be programmed for focus calibration. There have been plenty of reports of this issue from a number of users and getting a good copy seems to be hit and miss. I don't want to send in both bodies for calibration and risk having them showing issues with my other glass, some of which are long out of warranty and would cost big $$$ to have fixed back to normal.

I have spoken with Pentax..I have shared the concerns on this forum and others and they are addressing the issues expressed

Thanks
Ben

[Peter Zack]

Ben, that's great and all one could ask.

I'm 99.5% satisfied with all my Pentax gear and as this is my first ever real issue with a "new" item in 25 years (had a couple of well used older service issues that were handled well), the line has a pretty good track record in my books.

Thanks for your efforts to make things a little better.

[blende8]

I have spoken with Pentax..I have shared the concerns on this forum and others and they are addressing the issues expressed

In what way are they addressing it?
Can we expect a product recall?
I have an issue with mine as well, it is not focussing correctly at f = 16mm.
But I think I will wait until after X-mas for sending it in.
I use it quite a lot.
So far I use a work-around, focus at 50 mm and then change back to 16 mm.

[hll]

guys my question about 16-50 will be a little off topic, but for me it makes sense...
do you think its IQ is so better than 16-45, so it deserves twice the money...???
i don't forget the larger aperture or waterproof feature, but it is app. 800 dolar and should be much better (i am talking about IQ) than 16-45 which is app. 400 dolar...
thanx
halil

[jgredline]

Well, I must say that thought it was my imagination about the focus issues I was having with this lens...I even thought it was my camera body until I tried it on a different body..I then went to manual focus and the problem is fixed, but I did not spend 800 bucks for a manuel focus lens..It turns out the soft pics were a result of an unfocused shot....Manual focus produced some really sharp pics....The big brother to it the 50-135* rocks on!!!, but the little brother needs a slap on the head...Mine is right at the edge of the 14 day return period, so I am taking it back today for an exchange and hope it was a real bad copy.

[Wethphotography]

As you folks may recall, I bought one in August and got a bad copy. I chanced a 2nd copy before Thanksgiving and am pleased that this copy is better than the first. While it is still not as sharp at f2.8 as I would like, I feel it is usable for portraits and candids. Here is a snapshot I made of my son with the 2nd copy of the DA. It was made at 50mm, 1/60 and f2.8 with fill flash.


This image was taken at 1/125 and f2.8 also at 50mm. Neither of these photos has any sharpening applied. Shot in RAW and converted using ACR.


I will keep this copy of the lens as I am pleased with its performance; there is a touch of backfocussing, but I can live with it. The problem is not as severe as Peter's copy or my first copy of the lens. I used this lens for a wedding a week ago and was pleased with its performance. I hope Pentax gets the QC issues figured out, soon, so more folks can enjoy the many positives that James pointed out.