[Jewelltrail]

OrenMc: BTW I used to be an avid hiker also and plan to get back into it. It was the outdoors that started me in photography. Thanks fror the link to your thread. Oh to be back in the hills!!

It was the outdoors which brought me to photography too. You are welcome for the link--I look forward to some of your links with great shots from the Da.

[Canada_Rockies]

I don't know about you, but I find it virtually impossible to control lighting in outdoor settings for these kinds of tests.



Are you being serious? No distortion at this focal length. The distortion is found at the extreme wide end. Does the Flicker account strip EXIF data? I think someone here said something about this once.

Flickr does not strip EXIF data, but only retains it on the "Original" page. PITA, but for the price ...

I do not know what you are seeing, but the lens looks great on my end. with or without the focus adjustment.
I think a lot of the criticism both of these lenses receive, like so many other lenses, is from expectations which are too high by the owners.

I agree with this comment. I get more detail and better quality out of the 16-50 and 12-24 than could be bought 25 years ago. Imagine an 18mm lens capable of images that can be printed as large as 24x36 inches (that's almost a meter wide!) I just received a gallery print from MPix, 16x24 inches + the wrapping from the 12-24 at 12mm, hand held, and the print looks absolutely gorgeous - way better than I had any reason to expect. It looked like a nice picture at screen resolution, but enlarged, it is a WOW print.

I'll add to that - even the distortion levels were unheard of 25 years ago, except at astronomical prices. I'm absolutely delighted with the results from my 16-50.

[nulla]

I agree with this comment. I get more detail and better quality out of the 16-50 and 12-24 than could be bought 25 years ago. Imagine an 18mm lens capable of images that can be printed as large as 24x36 inches (that's almost a meter wide!) I just received a gallery print from MPix, 16x24 inches + the wrapping from the 12-24 at 12mm, hand held, and the print looks absolutely gorgeous - way better than I had any reason to expect. It looked like a nice picture at screen resolution, but enlarged, it is a WOW print.

I'll add to that - even the distortion levels were unheard of 25 years ago, except at astronomical prices. I'm absolutely delighted with the results from my 16-50.

Albert

Thats a very good point you make, I was a film man for a long time and Nikon too.

I too have had some very surprising and pleasing results after having some of my favorites enlarged and printed and especially from my da 16-50, just love that lens


Neil

[OrenMc]

I forgot to add that it is landscape that I am primarily looking for in a lens but I would like to be able to do portrait also. I have had my Tamron out a couple times, mainly trying to capture waterfalls and was not really impressed. Of course this could have been because of the amature behind the viewfinder.

There is a couple areas that I am trying fill as far as lens line up and I am looking for duel use of lens, portrait and wildlife. My Tamron does portrait well and I think landscape also but I really would like just a few more millimeters. I think 20mm is plenty wide for me as in the past most of my shooting is 50mm and above. But there were times I would have loved to be able to have around the 20mm mark. This is the reason I am looking at the 16-50 and because I can get it for $300. If I get the 16-50 I have to get rid of the Tamron but I have to have something I can rely on. The copy of the 16-50 I am trying has me a little worried. Its just not consistant.

I also am looking at Pentax 50-135 vs Tamron 70-200. The Tamron is ahead because I would be using it more for wildlife than for portrait.
A friend of mine ask me to do a wedding for him in a month so its either the combination of Pentax 16-50, 50-135 or Tamron 28-75, 70-200. I know both would work excellent but it is a hard decision. I may just go the Tamron way and get a used Pentax 16-45 to cover the wide end. This is probably the most logical solution since nature and wildlife is my primary focus.



Thanks all for the comments. I need to make up my mind fast though.

---

Last edited by OrenMc; 04-12-2009 at 10:48 AM.

[jamonation]

I agonized over the DA* 16-50mm as well comparing it to lots of other lenses in the general focal length (the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-70, even the DA 16-45). I mean agonized. Then dkittle from the forum posted his for sale at a price that was just too hard to pass up. I made sure to try it on my K20 first, but I was sold after the first 5 shots (around f5.6-8 mind you).

I had read a lot about the QC issues, softness in the corners etc., and perhaps I don't push it to the limits. But I haven't had any issues with it. Caveat, I come from the Takumar club, this is my first DA*, and I am clueless about autofocus (I always use the lens in manual with a Katz Eye).

I too find myself outside most of the time, and wanted the weather sealing for all those photos I haven't been able to take in the past in inclement weather. My only regret is that it hasn't been off my K20 for more than a month, and all my Takumars are languishing in my camera storage boxes..

With all that, here are some photos I've taken with it (though there are lots around, I figure the best way is to see and pixel peep, if only a little

16mm@f8.0. 1/250s, ISO100. From yesterday, I have a whack more to post later.

29mm@f5.6. Was a very cloudy day, surprised with the colour. EXIF/full res here

43mm@f2.8. I desaturated this a little. EXIF/full res here

16 mm@f8.0, very little distortion. EXIF/full res

45mm@f5.6. Corner to corner sharp, look at the paint stippling. EXIF/full res

50mm@f2.8. Another from yesterday. Harsh lighting, bokeh is still ok. EXIF/full res

Edit: if you can get the DA* 16-50mm for $300, don't even think twice about it!

[jamonation]

Not hijacking, sorry to spam. But something else to think about, the Tamron takes 67mm filters, whereas the Pentax is 77mm. Glass that large gets pricey, even for a UV filter, never mind a circular polarizer. But then for panoramas a polarizer is a bad idea anyways.

Angle of view is 78°45'-31°11' for the Tamron, 83° to 31.5° for the Pentax.

Also note that the Tamron is a 7 blade aperture, whereas the Pentax is 9.

[Jewelltrail]

OrenMc: This is the reason I am looking at the 16-50 and because I can get it for $300

I agree with Jamonation, if you can get the Da for $300, do not think twice about it!

Jamonation: With all that, here are some photos I've taken with it (though there are lots around, I figure the best way is to see and pixel peep, if only a little

Very nice display of the Da--thanks!

[res3567]

I agonized over the DA* 16-50mm as well comparing it to lots of other lenses in the general focal length (the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 17-70, even the DA 16-45). I mean agonized. Then dkittle from the forum posted his for sale at a price that was just too hard to pass up. I made sure to try it on my K20 first, but I was sold after the first 5 shots (around f5.6-8 mind you).

I had read a lot about the QC issues, softness in the corners etc., and perhaps I don't push it to the limits. But I haven't had any issues with it. Caveat, I come from the Takumar club, this is my first DA*, and I am clueless about autofocus (I always use the lens in manual with a Katz Eye).

I too find myself outside most of the time, and wanted the weather sealing for all those photos I haven't been able to take in the past in inclement weather. My only regret is that it hasn't been off my K20 for more than a month, and all my Takumars are languishing in my camera storage boxes..

With all that, here are some photos I've taken with it (though there are lots around, I figure the best way is to see and pixel peep, if only a little

16mm@f8.0. 1/250s, ISO100. From yesterday, I have a whack more to post later.

29mm@f5.6. Was a very cloudy day, surprised with the colour. EXIF/full res here

43mm@f2.8. I desaturated this a little. EXIF/full res here

16 mm@f8.0, very little distortion. EXIF/full res

45mm@f5.6. Corner to corner sharp, look at the paint stippling. EXIF/full res

50mm@f2.8. Another from yesterday. Harsh lighting, bokeh is still ok. EXIF/full res

Edit: if you can get the DA* 16-50mm for $300, don't even think twice about it!

Awesome pics!

I see why your lens has stayed on the K20D

Get a second body for your Taks!

[OrenMc]

Well, I've decided to hang on to it and use it for awhile and if I do need to send it in for adjustments I will still be okay after only spending $300.

Has anyone here had lenses serviced that could possibly give and idea how much it might cost. I called Pentax and they just said I needed to send it in before they could give me an estimate.

Thanks for all the photos and advice.

[Photomy]

I have no - I say again, no - complaints about this lens at all. There might be a bit of pixel peeping softness, but this is, after all, a super wide zoom lens. For anything I use if for it is decidedly lovely.

I do not think 16-50 is considered a super wide zoom on APS-C but a standard zoom. Same as 24-70 in FF.

[Canada_Rockies]

I do not think 16-50 is considered a super wide zoom on APS-C but a standard zoom. Same as 24-70 in FF.

I've always considered anything wider than 28mm/18mm as a super wide. That might be because I bought my Pentax in 1961 when 28mm was expensive.

[thomascdk]

I love mine. (And the 50-135). This is one shot were AF was important:

[dadipentak]

Compared to the image quality of the Tamron 17-50, I really don't see why anyone would spend $200 more for quieter focus, especially since the speed isn't that much faster.

I'd agree if it were just quieter focus but weather-sealing is something else again--especially in Seattle.

[messthetics]

I'd agree if it were just quieter focus but weather-sealing is something else again--especially in Seattle.

weather sealing is an absolutely killer feature worth the extra money alone. I have so many shots that I would have not been able to get if it wasn't for weathersealing. Keep in mind that I live in sunny California yet there are still so many situations I have to thank weathersealing- it isn't cold weather exclusive. It really helps you get the full worth out of the sealed body, which doesn't do too much without a lens (yeah, yeah plastic bags, but come on it's so much better without them). I also really like SDM as well. It's great for when I go out w/ my K-7 and shoot urban candids at waist level. That way, no one can hear the AF and the K-7 shutter is nearly inaudible. I guess it really depends on what you are shooting.

The 16/17-50 2.8 is kind of like the swiss army knife of lenses. If I only have one chance to shoot somewhere, it's what I use. I really like how images turned out from the 16-50 as well but I'm pretty easy to satisfy with lenses so take it for what you will.

[leadbelly]

I actually use my 16-50 90% of the time... the 50-135 gets used rarely, to the point that I think about selling it. However, the 50-135 is a stellar performer, so even if it gets used rarely, I stand by it...

Another thing about the 16-50, I think it is one of two lenses that I have used and have fallen in love with. Despite the issues (which fortunately, does not apply to my copy) and the rants that it's not "sharp enough," I find the 16-50 full of character. Sure it's not tack sharp unless stopped down, but it has a character all its own... I love my 16-50!

*the other lens I fell in love with is the 31 limited btw. Not mine, but I intend to get one for myself...