A lot has been said, in this and other forums, about problems with the DA* 16-50. Softness, chromatic aberration, focusing issues, lemons... This lens just got a bad reputation, which is probably making some potential buyers look for alternatives.
I actually got a 16-50 for my K10d a few months ago and was initially a bit apprehensive about having made a bad choice. I have been using it as my walkaround lens (I also have a DA* 50-135, but I use it only in particular occasions). I now believe this is a good lens with a reasonable price tag. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens ever and CA is definitely an issue, but it takes more than shapness tomake a good photo and CA is easily corrected by software. I think this is a versatile, fast and well built lens.
QC issues have been mentioned as the reason for some of the problems, but I'm wondering whether
some of the complains have a psychological factor behind them, influenced by all the bad comments.
I'm posting a few shots from my August trip to some of the Azores islands, taken with this lens. All photos were RAW-processed in Silkypix in the following manner (I do this procedure with all the photos I keep, independently of the lens used):
- CA correction.
- Cropping/rotation for improving composition.
- Tone curve adjustment for exposure tuning.
There are no award winners here, just vacation photos. Any comments are welcome. I think it would be especially interesting to know the feelings of other DA* 16-50 owners on this lens.
--