[little laker]

Lol, I'm not trying to attack. Just trying to understand the meaning in his post.

Ben is just making fun of another poster whom tests cameras, is often called a troll, and often lives up to the name. He doesn't seem to have much good to say about Pentax, and often stirs the pot here.

[Tom Lusk]

is that people are still buying this lens.

It has to have the highest percentage of faulty copies that have ever been produced by any manufacturer in history!

When people get three copies and ALL THREE are duds, that is pathetic. (It has happened to more than one poor person).

Despite being aware of problems with materials and QC for months - right from the introduction - Pentax continues to send out problem lenses.

And, sadly, based on a credible report on DPR a while back, there will be lens failures with this model in the future - possibly many of them - due to rough finishing on the inside of the barrel and a substandard plastic piece (a guide, I believe), also inside, that will cause the focussing mechanism to fail. One example of this type of failure has just been reported.

So - your shiny new 16-50, if you have been lucky so far and actually gotten one of the "good" copies, may take beautiful, sharp photos now, but may become useless after a period of use. If you're lucky, it will still be under warranty. If not, you have a paperweight.

Sad that the Pentax * has lost its lustre.

I'd be sticking with the FA* lenses...

[selar]

That explains why my lens gave me much better results when I first bought it.

I don't understand why Pentax doesn't issue a recall on this lens. If there is a widespread problem with the lens, they should offer a free inspection and repair the lens if faults are found, similar to the Olympus recall.

Olympus - Service Announcement

But for all the posts in this and other forums, I wouldn't even have been aware of the problems my lens had. I was generally dissatisfied with the performance, even before I did the tests, mainly because my kit lens gave me better results. It certainly gives nowhere near the performance of my F*300 4.5, that has the potential to make everyday around the backyard shots into the likeness of magazine covers.

In any event, I have given the DA*16-50 in for repair, along with my other rogue lens - Sigma EX 14/2.8.

[drivel]

I just tested my second copy and it's going back. I think that might be my last try.

I'm considering switching to Nikon. I'm not interested in the upcoming tamron and this is the right focal lengths for my needs.

Only other option would be a system like this: 12-24mm, 35mm da limited, 50-135.

Things to think about.

[nostatic]

I just tested my second copy and it's going back. I think that might be my last try.

I'm considering switching to Nikon. I'm not interested in the upcoming tamron and this is the right focal lengths for my needs.

Only other option would be a system like this: 12-24mm, 35mm da limited, 50-135.

Things to think about.

The other option is an E3. The 12-60 Zuiko is supposedly amazing. The main issue is the 2x factor means you're at 24mm wide but that is the same as the 16-50*. If you can live with that, it could be the hot ticket. I have not heard a single bad thing about that lens or qc which is in marked contrast to the 16-50*

Of course you're also giving up some dynamic range with the 4/3 vs the Pentax, and the ergonomics/ui on the Pentax seem to be better. No perfect solution. But if zoom glass is your main consideration imho Zuiko > Pentax. For primes, Pentax > Zuiko. But ymmv...

[drivel]

Yeah i kind of forget about the olympus system. It ends up costing me about 2x more than being in the pentax system.

If I do go to Nikon I'll probably have to go with a used D200 or a D80 in order to afford the 17-55mm I think it is.

[nostatic]

Yeah i kind of forget about the olympus system. It ends up costing me about 2x more than being in the pentax system.

If I do go to Nikon I'll probably have to go with a used D200 or a D80 in order to afford the 17-55mm I think it is.

From the K10d, the D80 seems like a sidestep at best, and more of a step down into more consumer than the pro end of the pool. The D200 is solid but has been seriously eclipsed by the D300. Seems like a waste to toss money at generation old technology unless it does *everything* you need.

The E3 is $1700 for the body, the 12-60 lens is about $950. It certainly is a chunk more money than going Pentax, even if you swapped to a K20d. You really have to want to go 4/3 and be happy with the glass that is out there for it.

If you can shoot primes I think it is worth it to stay in Pentax land. What is sad is that for $750 Pentax can't seem to consistently manufacture a top-end zoom. I'd gladly pay $1K if it were all that and a bag of chips. But the one that I briefly had was bested by the kit lens. And the reports here are not encouraging. The good ones seem really good. But too many aren't...

[benjikan]

I just tested my second copy and it's going back. I think that might be my last try.

I'm considering switching to Nikon. I'm not interested in the upcoming tamron and this is the right focal lengths for my needs.

Only other option would be a system like this: 12-24mm, 35mm da limited, 50-135.

Things to think about.

I own both the 16-45 and the 16-50. I owned the 17-40 lens when I used Canon. I found that the Pentax 16-45 out performed the 17-40 Canon L lens at all focal lengths. I used the Canon 17-40 in at least 70 percent of all of my pro shoots. If you feel insecure about using the 16-50 lens, I suggest you sell it and try the 16-45 in a camera store. It is a very sharp and consistent lens. It outperforms the 17-40 Canon L lens and costs half the price.

Here is a sample shot with the 16-45 for "Issue One" Magazine UK and now out on the stands.

Ben

[loudbay]

Ben,

Excellent Photo!

Curious as to your opinion of the Tamron 28-75 vs the DA 16-45 or DA* 16-50. I love my Tamron, but recently got the DA*50-135 (which is bitchin) and the focal length overlap has got me thinking....

Cheers,

Matt

[drivel]

Really nice shot Ben. I would probably consider the 16-45mm if it wasn't being replaced soon. I ended up just reordering from a different seller. I think B&H might get sick of me if I return another lens.

I also value the sdm and weather sealing. I'll cross my fingers again. On the plus side the lens gets cheaper every time I get a new copy. So far I've saved about $75, but I'd gladly pay that much more for a good copy.

There's so much I like about Pentax and this lens fits my needs and desires perfectly, if only it worked correctly lol. Eh, I'll wait here in anticipation until next week before I make any hasty or angry decisions.

[feronovak]

Has Pentax officially accepted that they have QC problems with 16-50mm? Do they know about these issues and if they do is there a plan in place to sort out the problem?

I have sold all my lenses except 35mm f2 few months ago as I wanted to buy 16-50mm and some tele zoom. But serious QC stopped me from buying it as I am not ready to invest $900 for lens which doesnt work correctly. I have money in my pocket for 16-50mm but cant really do anything. There is 17-50mm on market but I would prefer weather proof lens with internal motor. I might just go for ultrawide 10-20 sigma or something simillar for landscapes but was hoping for 16-50mm for weddings.

Do you see 16--50mm improvements recently or there are still same problems.

Thank you.

[benjikan]

Has Pentax officially accepted that they have QC problems with 16-50mm? Do they know about these issues and if they do is there a plan in place to sort out the problem?

I have sold all my lenses except 35mm f2 few months ago as I wanted to buy 16-50mm and some tele zoom. But serious QC stopped me from buying it as I am not ready to invest $900 for lens which doesnt work correctly. I have money in my pocket for 16-50mm but cant really do anything. There is 17-50mm on market but I would prefer weather proof lens with internal motor. I might just go for ultrawide 10-20 sigma or something simillar for landscapes but was hoping for 16-50mm for weddings.

Do you see 16--50mm improvements recently or there are still same problems.

Thank you.

Instead of the Sigma 10-20, I would highly recommend the Pentax 12-24. One of my favorites.

Ben

[ivoire]

I would agree with the 12-24mm pentax for landscapes as i think it has better resolution. i have the 10-20mm sigma and use it for interior real estate pics. it does work well for landscape (again the pentax is a bit sharper) and its real estate usage has paid for all my camera gear. have no experience with the 16-50mm, hence, no comment. i sold my 16-45mm to get the sigma as i need the 10mm for maximizing interior shots. just depends on what your needs are.

[Canada_Rockies]

Instead of the Sigma 10-20, I would highly recommend the Pentax 12-24. One of my favorites.

Ben

I second the vote for the 12-24 Pentax lens. There is one (1) shot taken with one on my Flickr lens test site in my sig. The worst thing you can do with an ultrawide is to use it indoors wide open. The shot is pretty darn good (lens wise).

[Geekybiker]

I dunno. 20% difference on the wide end.... I guess it depends on what you need it for.