Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2009, 11:41 AM   #31
emr
Guest




I have browsed through that thread earlier, but as far as I remember it does not really give a definite answer about how often they deliver onions really.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Also check the forum's database review of this lens: all but one reviewer scored the lens 8/10 or more...
Doesn't sound too bad, although the sample's fairly small.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Worried about QC? Buy from B&H (or other reputable dealer locally) and you have the assurance that if the copy is not up to scratch, then it will be exchanged or refunded to you.
That's not really an option for me living in Europe as I'd have to pay for shipping, customs and VAT in addition to the actual lens. And with a problematic lens pay at least the shipping once more...

09-09-2009, 12:31 PM   #32
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by emr Quote
That's not really an option for me living in Europe as I'd have to pay for shipping, customs and VAT in addition to the actual lens. And with a problematic lens pay at least the shipping once more...
I live in Australia - shipping is not much cheaper for me.
B&H have a generous policy to reimburse shipping both ways, even internationally, if the item purchased is defective.
The 16-50 is not a problematic lens. Not bought new now.
Would you have to pay customs for a $690 lens? How much would VAT set you back on such an item?
Would it not be cheaper anyway going this way? I know it is MUCH cheaper for me - that's why I shop with B&H for all my new gear.
09-09-2009, 12:38 PM   #33
emr
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Would you have to pay customs for a $690 lens? How much would VAT set you back on such an item?
I think you can only buy something of fairly low price not to have to pay customs duty. AFAIK, I'd have to pay about 4% for customs in addition to the shipping (not sure if this 4% is added to the shipping also). Then 22% VAT for the sum of the item and shipping. I once estimated that the lens would probably end up costing like $100 less and no local warranty. That was a few months ago, not sure of today.
09-09-2009, 01:58 PM   #34
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
22% VAT is extremely steep.
For all imported goods?
Quite a hefty price to pay.
OK, local's the way to go - as long as they can assure warranty (definitely worth having).

09-09-2009, 09:00 PM   #35
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by Bart Quote
Am I missing something?
[img snip]
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Yes. This:
[img snip]
That's some seriously heavy pp there Pål. Can I ask from both of you.... was a filter used in both photos, and which filter if so? I get quite bad flare w/my 12-24/4, but am pretty sure it's due to the B&W filter I use on it. So I'm not ready dismiss the 16-50/2.8 for that just yet.
09-10-2009, 11:24 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2007
Location: WW community of Pentax users
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,165
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
That's some seriously heavy pp there Pål. Can I ask from both of you.... was a filter used in both photos, and which filter if so?...
Sure, B+W UV filter MRC F-Pro.
Do you see a flair problem in my picture?
(perhaps I am going blind )
09-10-2009, 12:34 PM   #37
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by Bart Quote
Sure, B+W UV filter MRC F-Pro.
Do you see a flair problem in my picture?
(perhaps I am going blind )
actually, just a little [lower left had corner by the corner of the lower dock], where I probably would have with my wide angle I brought up pointing in the same direction as you were. Definitely do in Pal's even if it had to be brought our with heavy PP to make it more obvious at quick glance. I was just wondering tho if the filter brings on the flare. It would seem that as you were using a similar filter as I was I'm probably mistaken in attributing the flare I've seen with my wide zoom to the filter; or that the DA 12-24/4 acts differently; but also I dunno if my B&W is a MRC F-Pro, and a coating difference may make all the difference.

Last edited by m8o; 09-10-2009 at 12:41 PM.
09-10-2009, 01:02 PM   #38
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?
I have not used the Sigma 18-200, only the Tamron equivalent. The DA 16-50 is certainly much better. It is an altogether different lens, which cannot really be compared to a slow superzoom.

QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies
You have not heared about the excellent copies (as Wheatfield rightly pointed out), because it is a rare thing, that people post only, how satisfied they are.
I find my copy of the DA 16-50 a very good performer, even wide open. For my personal use, it is a much better choice, than the slow superzooms. Said that, also the cheaper Sigma 18-50/2.8 is a very good lens and considerably cheaper, than the DA. I have both. I prefer the Pentax, because the 16mm wide end is very important to me, but I keep the Sigma as a backup, because it is sharp and contrasty.

QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?

Thanks
You won't get an informed answer yet. The lens is brand new and I have not seen anybody so far, who actually got oine and put it through its paces.

But the older 10-20/4.5-5.6 is an excellent lens, which I always have with me. Stopped down to f/8-f/11 it is a very competent performer. If you also consider its low price, it is a real bargain.

Ben

09-10-2009, 01:09 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Yes. This:

If that is the naked, clean lens, it is a poor performance. Otherwise I would say, it looks like dust on the front element and/or a filter in front of the lens. With the sun that prominently in the center of the pic, any dust and scratches on a filter will cause these multiple orbs. I have not seen another image taken with that lens, that show such a poor flareing pattern. I'll give my own copy a try...

Ben
09-10-2009, 01:12 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
22% VAT is extremely steep.
For all imported goods?
Quite a hefty price to pay.
OK, local's the way to go - as long as they can assure warranty (definitely worth having).
VAT is on all goods - whether imported by yourself or bought in the next shop. On top of that, you have to pay customs duties, if you import anything valuable and you have to go through the customs procedure or pay another premium for UPS to take care of that... VAT is largely the reason, why basically everthing is cheaper in the US.

Ben
09-10-2009, 02:11 PM   #41
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
So what's the govt doing with all that VAT collected?
Really seems like a lot of money from goods - and your income is also taxed on top of that too?
09-10-2009, 02:40 PM   #42
Senior Member
Rich_A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 213
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
If that is the naked, clean lens, it is a poor performance. Otherwise I would say, it looks like dust on the front element and/or a filter in front of the lens. With the sun that prominently in the center of the pic, any dust and scratches on a filter will cause these multiple orbs. I have not seen another image taken with that lens, that show such a poor flareing pattern. I'll give my own copy a try...

Ben
I agree with Ben, here. I'd like to see this same situation from another 16-50mm whether it's not just crud on the filter...
09-10-2009, 07:12 PM   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,240
The 16-50 does flare sometimes, but nothing like that photo above. In my experience, it flares less than the 50-135 and significantly less than the FA 50, which is incredibly prone to flare.

Actually, the only lens I own that is less prone to flare is the DA 35, which probably wouldn't flare if you shot right into the sun without the hood...
09-10-2009, 07:21 PM   #44
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
less than the FA 50, which is incredibly prone to flare.
Have you got a hood for that FA? Very good investment if you don't.

If the weather's right tomorrow and I get a break from work, I'll try to take some flare-a-riffic pictures with the 16-50.
09-11-2009, 02:04 AM   #45
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
So what's the govt doing with all that VAT collected?
Really seems like a lot of money from goods - and your income is also taxed on top of that too?
of course we have income tax, which varies between countries. And we have social obligatory insurance on top. That said, the benefits to the society are also very obvious: schools are free and provide on average a good level of education, as are generally school books etc. The health care (though varying across the countries) is on a good level. We have unemployment schemes, including further education etc.etc.

I remember hitchhiking through Sweden, which had the highest income tax in Europe in the 80s and a proud business man, who had to pay more than 60% of his income to all these different taxes etc. showed me the latest hospital and mentioned, that, though he would love more real money in his pocket, he was very proud and felt happy about the generally high level of social security in his country. And the living standards across (Western and Southern) Europe are high enough indeed.

I feel the same today, though of course there are enough things I would like the govenrment to withdraw from. We have far too many civil servants in Germany for instance. I can see a reason for that in some key governmental areas (security...), but cannot quite understand, why teachers have to be civil servants.

There needs to be an ongoing discussion about what the govenrment really does with the tax payer's money.

Ben
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, quality, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone else afraid of robots? szurinaga General Talk 11 07-13-2010 07:13 PM
Black & White afraid of walking Corros Photo Critique 6 01-21-2010 12:27 AM
Who's afraid of spiders? davebris33 Photographic Technique 17 09-15-2008 09:32 PM
Not Afraid of Heights Mike Cash Post Your Photos! 10 06-30-2008 05:45 AM
Be afraid, be very very afraid little laker Post Your Photos! 5 06-07-2007 05:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:20 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top