For those with the DA* 16-50mm...

sharko · 02-01-2009, 01:17 PM

Just wondering...do you find it enough of a wide angle lens? Or do you still have something like the DA 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for a super-wide angle?

**Ash** · 02-01-2009, 01:26 PM

Depends what you find yourself taking more of...
Sure, I'd like to take wide landscapes once in a while, and 16mm sometimes doesn't cut it, particularly when the 16-50's weakness is at the short end. So I decided to add a DA 14 to the arsenal, and it's a decent performer.

I would have loved the 12-24, though - that's my pick for an ultra-wide.

Ben_Edict · 02-01-2009, 01:51 PM

I love the 16-50 - but I love the Sigma 10-20, too! And my old Pentax 15/3.5 and some more wide-angles. I still use them, they all have their applications.

Ben

benjikan · 02-01-2009, 02:27 PM

I also have the Pentax 12-24 f4.0 lens. It is a gem...

leeak · 02-01-2009, 03:46 PM

I sold the DA12-24/4 when I first got my DA16-50/2.8 in November because I thought the DA16-50/2.8 will cover my need at the wide end. Well, three months later, I find myself re-buying the DA12-24/4 and should be here next week. The DA16-50/2.8 is a wonderful walk around lens and pairs well with my FA77/1.8, but the DA12-24/4 is more specialized and still has a place in my bag.

sharko · 02-01-2009, 08:59 PM

I agree the DA 12-24mm is a great lens but thought that since there is such an overlap with the focal lengths the 16-50mm offers, I would wind up not using is much anymore. I'll hang on to it for when I want to go really wide as I wouldn't want to regret selling it. Getting the 16-50 was more as a replacement for the Tamron 28-75mm as a standard walk-around lens.

paolojackson · 02-02-2009, 01:07 PM

I have both and the extra 12-15mm makes a big difference, as many say, for those special times. Also, the distortion at 16mm on the DA* can be look quite pronounced at times.

TanGU · 02-03-2009, 01:19 PM

I might be simplist, but, i have the 16-50 DA* and at 16mm the distortion is quite heavy, it will be worst at 12mm, right ? So better keep the 16mm

audiobomber · 02-03-2009, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by TanGU

I might be simplist, but, i have the 16-50 DA* and at 16mm the distortion is quite heavy, it will be worst at 12mm, right ? So better keep the 16mm

Sorry, it's not clear whether you are joking or not. According to Photozone, the 12-24 has lower distortion at 12mm (2.1%) than the 16-50 at 16mm (3.6%).

Gooshin · 02-03-2009, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by TanGU

I might be simplist, but, i have the 16-50 DA* and at 16mm the distortion is quite heavy, it will be worst at 12mm, right ? So better keep the 16mm

distortion is a factor of lens design, not focal length directly, smaller focal lengths simply impose greater difficulties at making distortion less glass.

there are indeed wide angle lenses that have little to no distortion

this is why the 12-24, the 10-20, and the DA14 are valued lenses, because they offer very little distortion.

my guess as to why the DA*16-50 distorts, much like the 16-45, the kit lens, and any other wide-to-normal zoom, is simply an engineering problem, it would be too expensive to make these lenses be distortionless while maintaining their zoom range.

NeverSatisfied · 02-03-2009, 07:41 PM

Like the earlier poster said, the 16-50 has way more distortion at the wide end. I've had the 16-50 for a long time but just recently picked up the 12-24, which is a wonderful little lens (same filter size, too!). And seeing as there IS substantial overlap with those two lenses, I've been a lot happier carrying the 12-24 and Tamron 28-75 together (these two together handle about 75% of my needs). So I've been questioning my need for the 16-50 (and it's a good copy, too), but I'd never want to do without a good ultra-wide like the DA 12-24.

P.S. If your serious about getting one, check ProDigital2000.
Paul

jsherman999 · 02-03-2009, 08:18 PM

I sold my 16-50 (great copy) after I started using the 12-24 a lot, and I use my M 20 f/4 when I want a very small/light/ultra-sharp wide-ish angle.

Here's a shot I took at 12, 16 and 24mm to illlustrate some differences:

12mm

16mm

24mm

**Hannican** · 02-03-2009, 08:56 PM

Damn 12mm is WAY wider than 16mm!

Now if only MSN Live Search Cash Back would return...

**Ash** · 02-07-2009, 05:47 PM

Despite the overlap between the 12-24 and 16-50, the sweet spot for the 12-24 is between 12 and about 18mm, whereas the 16-50's best performing FLs are in the 20-40mm (or so) range.

I mean you can justify it how you like, but having the 2 lenses is not unreasonable if you want to capture rectilinear wide to normal images in that range.

sharko · 02-07-2009, 06:52 PM

I wound up ordering the DA* about a week ago from prodigital2000 but it doesn't seems like it's shipped yet...how long does it usually take from that seller?

02-01-2009, 01:17 PM	#1
sharko Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: City of Angels Photos: Gallery Posts: 278	*For those with the DA 16-50mm...** Just wondering...do you find it enough of a wide angle lens? Or do you still have something like the DA 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for a super-wide angle?

02-03-2009, 07:41 PM	#11
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	Da 12-24 Like the earlier poster said, the 16-50 has way more distortion at the wide end. I've had the 16-50 for a long time but just recently picked up the 12-24, which is a wonderful little lens (same filter size, too!). And seeing as there IS substantial overlap with those two lenses, I've been a lot happier carrying the 12-24 and Tamron 28-75 together (these two together handle about 75% of my needs). So I've been questioning my need for the 16-50 (and it's a good copy, too), but I'd never want to do without a good ultra-wide like the DA 12-24. P.S. If your serious about getting one, check ProDigital2000. Paul

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax FA-50mm 1.7 or F-50mm 1.7, Sigma 50mm EX 1.4	vtqanh	Sold Items	1	11-03-2010 04:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 / Pentax-A 50mm 1.7 / Pentax-M 50mm 1.4 (US)	JP_Seattle	Sold Items	3	09-02-2010 06:17 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax *ist DL, FA 50mm f/1.4, DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro, DA 18-55mm, A 50mm f/2.0	chemxaj	Sold Items	14	05-31-2010 09:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: F 24-50mm 4, A 24-50mm 4, M 35mm 2, M 50mm 1.4, A 35-105mm 3.5, A 70-210mm 4	raybird	Sold Items	7	08-29-2008 01:06 PM

02-01-2009, 01:26 PM	#2
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Depends what you find yourself taking more of... Sure, I'd like to take wide landscapes once in a while, and 16mm sometimes doesn't cut it, particularly when the 16-50's weakness is at the short end. So I decided to add a DA 14 to the arsenal, and it's a decent performer. I would have loved the 12-24, though - that's my pick for an ultra-wide.

02-01-2009, 01:51 PM	#3
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	I love the 16-50 - but I love the Sigma 10-20, too! And my old Pentax 15/3.5 and some more wide-angles. I still use them, they all have their applications. Ben

02-01-2009, 02:27 PM	#4
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	I also have the Pentax 12-24 f4.0 lens. It is a gem...

02-01-2009, 03:46 PM	#5
leeak Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 245	I sold the DA12-24/4 when I first got my DA16-50/2.8 in November because I thought the DA16-50/2.8 will cover my need at the wide end. Well, three months later, I find myself re-buying the DA12-24/4 and should be here next week. The DA16-50/2.8 is a wonderful walk around lens and pairs well with my FA77/1.8, but the DA12-24/4 is more specialized and still has a place in my bag.

02-01-2009, 08:59 PM	#6
sharko Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: City of Angels Photos: Gallery Posts: 278 Original Poster	I agree the DA 12-24mm is a great lens but thought that since there is such an overlap with the focal lengths the 16-50mm offers, I would wind up not using is much anymore. I'll hang on to it for when I want to go really wide as I wouldn't want to regret selling it. Getting the 16-50 was more as a replacement for the Tamron 28-75mm as a standard walk-around lens.

02-02-2009, 01:07 PM	#7
paolojackson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 379	I have both and the extra 12-15mm makes a big difference, as many say, for those special times. Also, the distortion at 16mm on the DA* can be look quite pronounced at times.

02-03-2009, 01:19 PM	#8
TanGU Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Longueuil, QC Photos: Gallery Posts: 90	I might be simplist, but, i have the 16-50 DA* and at 16mm the distortion is quite heavy, it will be worst at 12mm, right ? So better keep the 16mm

02-03-2009, 02:46 PM	#9
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by TanGU I might be simplist, but, i have the 16-50 DA* and at 16mm the distortion is quite heavy, it will be worst at 12mm, right ? So better keep the 16mm Sorry, it's not clear whether you are joking or not. According to Photozone, the 12-24 has lower distortion at 12mm (2.1%) than the 16-50 at 16mm (3.6%).

02-03-2009, 03:22 PM	#10
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by TanGU I might be simplist, but, i have the 16-50 DA* and at 16mm the distortion is quite heavy, it will be worst at 12mm, right ? So better keep the 16mm distortion is a factor of lens design, not focal length directly, smaller focal lengths simply impose greater difficulties at making distortion less glass. there are indeed wide angle lenses that have little to no distortion this is why the 12-24, the 10-20, and the DA14 are valued lenses, because they offer very little distortion. my guess as to why the DA*16-50 distorts, much like the 16-45, the kit lens, and any other wide-to-normal zoom, is simply an engineering problem, it would be too expensive to make these lenses be distortionless while maintaining their zoom range.

02-03-2009, 08:18 PM	#12
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I sold my 16-50 (great copy) after I started using the 12-24 a lot, and I use my M 20 f/4 when I want a very small/light/ultra-sharp wide-ish angle. Here's a shot I took at 12, 16 and 24mm to illlustrate some differences: 12mm 16mm 24mm

02-03-2009, 08:56 PM	#13
Hannican Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 485	Damn 12mm is WAY wider than 16mm! Now if only MSN Live Search Cash Back would return...

02-07-2009, 05:47 PM	#14
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Despite the overlap between the 12-24 and 16-50, the sweet spot for the 12-24 is between 12 and about 18mm, whereas the 16-50's best performing FLs are in the 20-40mm (or so) range. I mean you can justify it how you like, but having the 2 lenses is not unreasonable if you want to capture rectilinear wide to normal images in that range.

02-07-2009, 06:52 PM	#15
sharko Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: City of Angels Photos: Gallery Posts: 278 Original Poster	I wound up ordering the DA* about a week ago from prodigital2000 but it doesn't seems like it's shipped yet...how long does it usually take from that seller?