[nickthetasmaniac]

I've unfortunately had endless problems with my DA* 16-50... IQ has been consistently excellent, but build quality has been consistently poor... I've had to return the lens to manufacturer 4 times, twice for a loose lens barrel (the part that extends) and twice for a significant stick while zooming through 28mm. 3 of these times the lens ended up being replaced, so it wasn't just a single bad copy.

When it works, the 16-50 is outstanding. But the issues I've had and the lack of an alternative weather-sealed wide-angle option (the majority of my photography is landscapes in Tasmanian weather) have me seriously considering a switch to Olympus

[dan aron]

So the experiences varies quite a lot.
I'm wondering how is the af compared to 16-45mm?
I shot 3 months only with 50-135mm and got used to it pretty well. Then 16-45mm came from service and I almost got heart attack.. It's like superfast compared to 50-135mm. So how is it with 16-50mm?

[Ash]

Can't compare the 16-45's AF to the 50-135. Different focal lengths, different focus ring throws.
Better comparing it to the 16-50, which has a similar focus ring throw and is just fast IMO.
Nick's experience is unfortunate and out of the ordinary - the number of duds just should not have existed back to back with this lens, particularly if the lens copies supplied were from the newer production batch.
A good copy should not be so hard to find thesedays.

[RBellavance]

Better comparing it to the 16-50, which has a similar focus ring throw and is just fast IMO.

The DA*16-50 is the slowest-focusing lens I have ever used, on a Pentax or anything else. That alone, concerns about its IQ notwidthstanding, would prevent me from buying one.

SDM feels like a bad joke to me so far. Its only "benefit" is that it is silent.

I have been soooo planning to get one, but all these issues and price hikes make me hesitant. I'll just have to buy another weather sealed fast-aperture wide K mount zoom. In addition to this lens there are ... none. I wonder why no third party lens maker has made WR lenses for Pentax?

[Ash]

The DA*16-50 is the slowest-focusing lens I have ever used, on a Pentax or anything else. That alone, concerns about its IQ notwidthstanding, would prevent me from buying one.

SDM feels like a bad joke to me so far. Its only "benefit" is that it is silent.

What other lenses have you used?
My 16-50 focuses as fast and as accurately as any of my other wide-normal zooms, including the 16-45, Tammy 28-75, 12-24 and 10-17.

Moreover, my copy (as well as many others on this forum) produces stellar results and has unrivalled IQ in its focal range. Results speak for themselves. No concerns in any way with it on my part.

SDM is no faster than screw-drive, but that's not the reason one would invest in it.

If you don't have and have never had a 16-50, you really aren't the most appropriate person to critique it.

[Ash]

I have been soooo planning to get one, but all these issues and price hikes make me hesitant. I'll just have to buy another weather sealed fast-aperture wide K mount zoom. In addition to this lens there are ... none. I wonder why no third party lens maker has made WR lenses for Pentax?

If you planned to get one, just get one.
If you believe the price it's at now is still worth paying for the lens, just pay it.
If you want WR, it's a no brainer.
You'll be waiting a while, perhaps an eternity, for a third party WR lens... just see our Canikon brethren for evidence of that...

[RBellavance]

What other lenses have you used?

See my profile for the lenses I own.

I had the chance, thanks to Peter Zack, to try out a DA*16-50 for about 90 minutes last summer.

Subjectively, *all* of my lenses focused faster, including the FA77 which is no speed demon itself.

My 16-50 focuses as fast and as accurately as any of my other wide-normal zooms, including the 16-45, Tammy 28-75, 12-24 and 10-17.

My Sigma 17-70mm is lightning fast by comparison.

Moreover, my copy (as well as many others on this forum) produces stellar results and has unrivalled IQ in its focal range. Results speak for themselves. No concerns in any way with it on my part.

I agree about the IQ.

If you don't have and have never had a 16-50, you really aren't the most appropriate person to critique it.

I never said I was. And from my impressions of the lens when I tried it out, I'll likely never be since I don't plan on buying it. But I'm still entitled to voice the impression the lens leff me with.

[krypticide]

I've had the Tamron 17-50mm and now the DA* 16-50mm. My biggest gripe with the DA* is chromatic aberration wide open. Softness (which isn't bad at all) doesn't bother me, but I do get annoyed with CA. Granted, it happens only in super high contrast situations (tree branches against sky, for example) and mostly when not stopped down.

I'm keeping the DA* over the Tamron largely for weather-sealing reasons.