the obligatory 16-50* brick wall test

nostatic · 07-26-2009, 05:12 PM

I rail against them, but with this lens it is worth checking. Besides, all the cool kids are doing it...

Handheld, K20d body
16mm - 2.8
overall

center

bottom left

top left

top right

bottom right

Last edited by nostatic; 07-26-2009 at 05:26 PM.

nostatic · 07-26-2009, 05:13 PM

16mm - f4

overall

center

bottom left

top left

top right

bottom right

nostatic · 07-26-2009, 05:14 PM

16mm f7.1

I rail against them, but with this lens it is worth checking. For your approval (handheld)

16mm - 2.8
overall

center

bottom left

top left

top right

bottom right

nostatic · 07-26-2009, 05:15 PM

And just for grins, 15/4

15mm - f4
overall

center

bottom left

top left

top right

bottom right

Last edited by nostatic; 07-26-2009 at 11:13 PM.

nostatic · 07-26-2009, 05:16 PM

15/4

15mm f7.1

overall

center

bottom left

top left

top right

bottom right

Andi Lo · 07-26-2009, 05:30 PM

The resolving power of the zoom seems to be better than the DA 15 at the corners? That's... interesting.

I guess I'll be sticking to DA 12-24 or Siggy after all for wide angles

Either way your copy looks fine to me.

BBear · 07-26-2009, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

The resolving power of the zoom seems to be better than the DA 15 at the corners? That's... interesting

based on what has been shown, i'd say you are correct.

Very interesting.

nostatic · 07-26-2009, 08:48 PM

The one rap on the 15 is "soft at the corners" and that certainly shows up here. But it also shows almost no distortion, which the 16-50* cannot claim at 16mm. And it is tiny compared to the 16-50. But the 16-50 is weathersealed and faster. Everything is a trade-off...

In the end the test are only useful to show if there is something physically "wrong" with the lens. The inherent characteristics are what they are.

Just for grins, a few 15 and 16 "real world" shots - no pp, just jpg conversion in Aperture. Full size jpg linked below.

http://nostatic.com/photos/15-1-f.jpg

http://nostatic.com/photos/16-1-f.jpg

http://nostatic.com/photos/15-2-f.jpg

http://nostatic.com/photos/16-2-f.jpg

my fav for color

http://nostatic.com/photos/31f.jpg

**Ash** · 07-27-2009, 02:40 AM

Yes, I thought you were bent against these 'wall' tests of lenses, but as you've shown it does reveal its weaknesses when pushed to the limit.

I still love the results I get from the 16-50...

Gooshin · 07-27-2009, 09:24 AM

you're not even parallel with the wall!!

distortion figures and corner-to-corner sharpness cannot be conclusive!

epic fail!

ryan s · 07-27-2009, 09:26 AM

Wait...you used the 16-50 for things besides brick walls?

Pretty sure that's not allowed

nostatic · 07-27-2009, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

you're not even parallel with the wall!!

distortion figures and corner-to-corner sharpness cannot be conclusive!

epic fail!

hey, I was drunk...

Well, not really. I don't care about "conclusive". I leave that to the measurebators. I just wanted to get a feel for whether or not the 16-50 was well-behaved. And this copy seems to be just that. I expect barrel distortion with the zoom set wide and I expect the 15 to be a little soft wide open at the corners due to the small size.

"epic fail!" for me would be if I actually wasted even more time making measurements and running dxo tests. As it stands I'm embarrassed that I shot a brick wall...when I could have been shooting targets:

Gooshin · 07-27-2009, 09:43 AM

thats a pretty small caliber...

like what, 3mm?

nostatic · 07-27-2009, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

thats a pretty small caliber...

like what, 3mm?

The top is .22lr pistol, off-hand at 10m.

The bottom is 25 rounds of 12ga at 7m.

Kind of a yin/yang thing...

Gooshin · 07-27-2009, 09:48 AM

i prefer rocket launchers myself...

shell shock ftw!

07-26-2009, 05:12 PM	#1
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	*the obligatory 16-50 brick wall test** I rail against them, but with this lens it is worth checking. Besides, all the cool kids are doing it... Handheld, K20d body 16mm - 2.8 overall center bottom left top left top right bottom right Last edited by nostatic; 07-26-2009 at 05:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People slightly better than a standard brick wall test	dgaies	Post Your Photos!	8	10-06-2010 06:37 PM
K-7 and Brick Wall Test	xhanatos	Post Your Photos!	8	07-07-2009 02:20 AM
Part 2: Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - Brick Wall test (CROPS)	eva2000	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	12-21-2008 08:43 AM
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - Brick Wall test	eva2000	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	12-13-2008 11:47 PM
test DA* 50-135 + 1.7x TC (kitty, not a brick wall)	dkittle	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	03-24-2008 06:41 PM

07-26-2009, 05:13 PM	#2
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	16mm - f4 overall center bottom left top left top right bottom right

07-26-2009, 05:14 PM	#3
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	16mm f7.1 I rail against them, but with this lens it is worth checking. For your approval (handheld) 16mm - 2.8 overall center bottom left top left top right bottom right

07-26-2009, 05:15 PM	#4
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	And just for grins, 15/4 15mm - f4 overall center bottom left top left top right bottom right Last edited by nostatic; 07-26-2009 at 11:13 PM.

07-26-2009, 05:16 PM	#5
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	15/4 15mm f7.1 overall center bottom left top left top right bottom right

07-26-2009, 05:30 PM	#6
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	The resolving power of the zoom seems to be better than the DA 15 at the corners? That's... interesting. I guess I'll be sticking to DA 12-24 or Siggy after all for wide angles Either way your copy looks fine to me.

07-26-2009, 08:17 PM	#7
BBear Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: CT / NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 822	Originally posted by Andi Lo The resolving power of the zoom seems to be better than the DA 15 at the corners? That's... interesting based on what has been shown, i'd say you are correct. Very interesting.

07-26-2009, 08:48 PM	#8
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	The one rap on the 15 is "soft at the corners" and that certainly shows up here. But it also shows almost no distortion, which the 16-50* cannot claim at 16mm. And it is tiny compared to the 16-50. But the 16-50 is weathersealed and faster. Everything is a trade-off... In the end the test are only useful to show if there is something physically "wrong" with the lens. The inherent characteristics are what they are. Just for grins, a few 15 and 16 "real world" shots - no pp, just jpg conversion in Aperture. Full size jpg linked below. http://nostatic.com/photos/15-1-f.jpg http://nostatic.com/photos/16-1-f.jpg http://nostatic.com/photos/15-2-f.jpg http://nostatic.com/photos/16-2-f.jpg my fav for color http://nostatic.com/photos/31f.jpg

07-27-2009, 02:40 AM	#9
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Yes, I thought you were bent against these 'wall' tests of lenses, but as you've shown it does reveal its weaknesses when pushed to the limit. I still love the results I get from the 16-50...

07-27-2009, 09:24 AM	#10
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	you're not even parallel with the wall!! distortion figures and corner-to-corner sharpness cannot be conclusive! epic fail!

07-27-2009, 09:26 AM	#11
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Wait...you used the 16-50 for things besides brick walls? Pretty sure that's not allowed

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-27-2009, 09:42 AM	#12
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	Originally posted by Gooshin you're not even parallel with the wall!! distortion figures and corner-to-corner sharpness cannot be conclusive! epic fail! hey, I was drunk... Well, not really. I don't care about "conclusive". I leave that to the measurebators. I just wanted to get a feel for whether or not the 16-50 was well-behaved. And this copy seems to be just that. I expect barrel distortion with the zoom set wide and I expect the 15 to be a little soft wide open at the corners due to the small size. "epic fail!" for me would be if I actually wasted even more time making measurements and running dxo tests. As it stands I'm embarrassed that I shot a brick wall...when I could have been shooting targets:

07-27-2009, 09:43 AM	#13
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	thats a pretty small caliber... like what, 3mm?

07-27-2009, 09:47 AM	#14
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575 Original Poster	Originally posted by Gooshin thats a pretty small caliber... like what, 3mm? The top is .22lr pistol, off-hand at 10m. The bottom is 25 rounds of 12ga at 7m. Kind of a yin/yang thing...

07-27-2009, 09:48 AM	#15
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	i prefer rocket launchers myself... shell shock ftw!