Afraid to buy 16-50

inferno10 · 08-02-2009, 05:10 PM

Have you considered the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? They make a Pentax version, and it's cheaper than the 16-50. I owned the 18-50 for a while (moved to the 16-50), and it was a good lens. You won't get weather-sealing or SDM for quiet-focusing, but, again, it's more affordable.

- Jason

**Canada_Rockies** · 08-02-2009, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by inferno10

Have you considered the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? They make a Pentax version, and it's cheaper than the 16-50. I owned the 18-50 for a while (moved to the 16-50), and it was a good lens. You won't get weather-sealing or SDM for quiet-focusing, but, again, it's more affordable.

- Jason

The jump from 18 to 16mm is huge. Honest. I have the 16-50, and it is a superb lens. It is my walkabout lens.

parkpy · 08-04-2009, 01:23 PM

I'm not too impressed with a rental copy of the DA* 16-50 on my K200d. It backfocuses, hunts, and then ultimately front focuses. It's slow to focus, and when it does focus, it's off. Fortunately I can grab the focus ring at anytime and adjust. The ergonomics are awkward, it's heavy for what it is, and doesn't feel like it's built out of better materials than the 16-45.

I rented this to see if I really wanted to put the money down on the DA* 16-50, but I'm back in the situation I was in before deciding which lens I was going to buy to replace my 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes.

Bart · 08-09-2009, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Personally, I find the 16-50/2.8 quite awful when it comes to flare....

Am I missing something?

**Ash** · 08-09-2009, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by parkpy

I'm not too impressed with a rental copy of the DA* 16-50 on my K200d. It backfocuses, hunts, and then ultimately front focuses. It's slow to focus, and when it does focus, it's off. Fortunately I can grab the focus ring at anytime and adjust. The ergonomics are awkward, it's heavy for what it is, and doesn't feel like it's built out of better materials than the 16-45.

Disagree.

Ergonomics are well balanced with a body+grip, although I'd agree that the zoom ring is small and tucked in too close to the body.

Heavy for what it is? Have you handled Canon's FF counterpart? The 24-70L?
For what it is, it's light, if anything. But a lens is not judged on weight - if it's too heavy for someone, then sure, the 16-45 is another option...

No better build than the 16-45? How do you gather this?
The outer plastic shell, which itself is hardier than the 16-45's covering, conceals all the weather sealing and solid metal materials within, which distinguishes it from the 16-45. Now the SDM mechanism isn't fall-proof, so it may not take a big knock or fall as well as other screw-drive lenses, but that's the price for precision electronics...

Sorry that your rented 16-50 didn't perform to scratch - mine and many others' copies do the job brilliantly every time.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-09-2009, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Bart

Am I missing something?

Yes. This:

Wheatfield · 08-09-2009, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Yes. This:

That's a bit of a torture test isn't it?

pingflood · 08-09-2009, 11:31 AM

Torture test or not, that's a pretty pitiful performance. I'd expect it out of my 1936 Summar but not from modern glass.

nostatic · 08-09-2009, 11:53 AM

I got a good copy. Often people have unrealistic expectations and feed on the interwebs frenzy of photozone tests and other stuff. With this lens though there were some bad copies so I think that this is a rare case where the brick wall shots are called for. I found that the 16-50* outperformed the 15/4 at the corners wide open and even stopped down. The 16-50* does vignette wide open and has more distortion at 16mm than the 15. All things considered, I think the 16-50* is a great performer, and if you want/need weather sealed (I shoot in dust/sand a lot) it is a perfect choice.

If you don't need the seals, frankly the 16-45mm is a GREAT lens and on-par optically with the 16-50* imho.

Bart · 08-09-2009, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Yes. This:
...

I see your problem. How comes, you think, non of this shows up in my example?

bymy141 · 08-11-2009, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by DurDur

Hi

I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice.

So I ask:

1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?

2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies

3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?

Thanks

Afraid to buy the 16-50mm? Don't, it my most favorite lens!

- Bert

emr · 09-09-2009, 09:08 AM

I have been thinking about getting this lens a lot - or perhaps more like was until the price hikes. However, I'm still quite worried about QC issues with it. Issues that should not be common with a lens of this price level. I know most owners are quite happy with theirs, but on the other hand it seems that people are still getting defective ones brand new.

So, I was wondering if there ever was a poll about how many have had problems with this lens and how many not? If nobody has started a poll before, I just might. In that case what options do you think should have in it? Like, was there a certain time point that would be needed to split the purchase time or something like that?

**Ash** · 09-09-2009, 10:58 AM

Have you seen this?:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/22297-da-16-50...-database.html

Also check the forum's database review of this lens: all but one reviewer scored the lens 8/10 or more...

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.

PolishMike · 09-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Since this thread is so full of praise, I think I'll counterbalance it by saying that mine was crap when I got it. The guys at SRS Microsystems were very surprised - said they haven't seen a bad one since the initial production run, which they admitted had a lot of problems.
The lens was sent for repairs, and has now come back with a new lease on life. It now performs equally well across the frame. I did a quick MTF chart test - as nostatic says, this is one lens where a resolution test is something you will want to do - and at 50mm it performs marginally better than my old 18-55 kit. Worse than an FA 50mm at the same aperture. When I fist got it it was markedly worse than the 18-55. So good, but not stunning.

Bart, if I try to take a picture like your example - sun in a corner, I get a huge, multicolored flare pattern across the whole frame. Took a quick snap out of my window, just so you get the idea:

The same thing happens at all angles and even with the sun itself outside the frame. Is this normal-ish or is my lens going on another trip around the world?

shutterbob · 09-09-2009, 11:38 AM

I can't see your equipment list, so don't don't what camera body you have. But if you have the K10d with firmware upgrade or above and can use SDM lens, I can wholeheartedly recommend the:
DA17-70mm SDM & the
DA16-45mm

The 16-50 has a great number of satisfied users as well, just a little pricey. I just purchased the 17-70 and owned the 16-45 for 2-3 years. Both the 17-70 & the 16-45 are on the slow side at f4 compared to the 16-50's 2.8. But IQ is fantastic throughout the zoom range for both. In terms of IQ they are close to being twins. I'm so impressed with the silence of the SDM on the 17-70 and the quick focusing....almost seems like magic after using the noisy screw actuators. I ordered my 17-70 from Willoughby's for $529 and then found it next day at B&H for $489....aaarrrggghhh!!

Best bang for the buck is the DA16-45. Best zoom range option with the silence of SDM is the DA17-70.

Best of luck shopping!

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

08-02-2009, 05:10 PM	#16
inferno10 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 342	Have you considered the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? They make a Pentax version, and it's cheaper than the 16-50. I owned the 18-50 for a while (moved to the 16-50), and it was a good lens. You won't get weather-sealing or SDM for quiet-focusing, but, again, it's more affordable. - Jason

08-02-2009, 07:12 PM	#17
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by inferno10 Have you considered the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? They make a Pentax version, and it's cheaper than the 16-50. I owned the 18-50 for a while (moved to the 16-50), and it was a good lens. You won't get weather-sealing or SDM for quiet-focusing, but, again, it's more affordable. - Jason The jump from 18 to 16mm is huge. Honest. I have the 16-50, and it is a superb lens. It is my walkabout lens.

08-04-2009, 01:23 PM	#18
parkpy New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 13	I'm not too impressed with a rental copy of the DA* 16-50 on my K200d. It backfocuses, hunts, and then ultimately front focuses. It's slow to focus, and when it does focus, it's off. Fortunately I can grab the focus ring at anytime and adjust. The ergonomics are awkward, it's heavy for what it is, and doesn't feel like it's built out of better materials than the 16-45. I rented this to see if I really wanted to put the money down on the DA* 16-50, but I'm back in the situation I was in before deciding which lens I was going to buy to replace my 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes.

08-09-2009, 09:09 AM	#19
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Personally, I find the 16-50/2.8 quite awful when it comes to flare.... Am I missing something?

08-09-2009, 10:00 AM	#20
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by parkpy I'm not too impressed with a rental copy of the DA* 16-50 on my K200d. It backfocuses, hunts, and then ultimately front focuses. It's slow to focus, and when it does focus, it's off. Fortunately I can grab the focus ring at anytime and adjust. The ergonomics are awkward, it's heavy for what it is, and doesn't feel like it's built out of better materials than the 16-45. Disagree. Ergonomics are well balanced with a body+grip, although I'd agree that the zoom ring is small and tucked in too close to the body. Heavy for what it is? Have you handled Canon's FF counterpart? The 24-70L? For what it is, it's light, if anything. But a lens is not judged on weight - if it's too heavy for someone, then sure, the 16-45 is another option... No better build than the 16-45? How do you gather this? The outer plastic shell, which itself is hardier than the 16-45's covering, conceals all the weather sealing and solid metal materials within, which distinguishes it from the 16-45. Now the SDM mechanism isn't fall-proof, so it may not take a big knock or fall as well as other screw-drive lenses, but that's the price for precision electronics... Sorry that your rented 16-50 didn't perform to scratch - mine and many others' copies do the job brilliantly every time.

08-09-2009, 10:57 AM	#21
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Bart Am I missing something? Yes. This:

08-09-2009, 11:10 AM	#22
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Yes. This: That's a bit of a torture test isn't it?

08-09-2009, 11:31 AM	#23
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Torture test or not, that's a pretty pitiful performance. I'd expect it out of my 1936 Summar but not from modern glass.

08-09-2009, 11:53 AM	#24
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	I got a good copy. Often people have unrealistic expectations and feed on the interwebs frenzy of photozone tests and other stuff. With this lens though there were some bad copies so I think that this is a rare case where the brick wall shots are called for. I found that the 16-50* outperformed the 15/4 at the corners wide open and even stopped down. The 16-50* does vignette wide open and has more distortion at 16mm than the 15. All things considered, I think the 16-50* is a great performer, and if you want/need weather sealed (I shoot in dust/sand a lot) it is a perfect choice. If you don't need the seals, frankly the 16-45mm is a GREAT lens and on-par optically with the 16-50* imho.

08-09-2009, 10:59 PM	#25
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Yes. This: ... I see your problem. How comes, you think, non of this shows up in my example?

08-11-2009, 02:34 PM	#26
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563	Originally posted by DurDur Hi I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice. So I ask: 1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma? 2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies 3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5? Thanks Afraid to buy the 16-50mm? Don't, it my most favorite lens! - Bert

09-09-2009, 09:08 AM	#27
emr Guest	I have been thinking about getting this lens a lot - or perhaps more like was until the price hikes. However, I'm still quite worried about QC issues with it. Issues that should not be common with a lens of this price level. I know most owners are quite happy with theirs, but on the other hand it seems that people are still getting defective ones brand new. So, I was wondering if there ever was a poll about how many have had problems with this lens and how many not? If nobody has started a poll before, I just might. In that case what options do you think should have in it? Like, was there a certain time point that would be needed to split the purchase time or something like that?

09-09-2009, 10:58 AM	#28
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Have you seen this?: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/22297-da-16-50...-database.html Also check the forum's database review of this lens: all but one reviewer scored the lens 8/10 or more... 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.

09-09-2009, 11:17 AM	#29
PolishMike Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 150	Since this thread is so full of praise, I think I'll counterbalance it by saying that mine was crap when I got it. The guys at SRS Microsystems were very surprised - said they haven't seen a bad one since the initial production run, which they admitted had a lot of problems. The lens was sent for repairs, and has now come back with a new lease on life. It now performs equally well across the frame. I did a quick MTF chart test - as nostatic says, this is one lens where a resolution test is something you will want to do - and at 50mm it performs marginally better than my old 18-55 kit. Worse than an FA 50mm at the same aperture. When I fist got it it was markedly worse than the 18-55. So good, but not stunning. Bart, if I try to take a picture like your example - sun in a corner, I get a huge, multicolored flare pattern across the whole frame. Took a quick snap out of my window, just so you get the idea: The same thing happens at all angles and even with the sun itself outside the frame. Is this normal-ish or is my lens going on another trip around the world?

09-09-2009, 11:38 AM	#30
shutterbob Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 69	I can't see your equipment list, so don't don't what camera body you have. But if you have the K10d with firmware upgrade or above and can use SDM lens, I can wholeheartedly recommend the: DA17-70mm SDM & the DA16-45mm The 16-50 has a great number of satisfied users as well, just a little pricey. I just purchased the 17-70 and owned the 16-45 for 2-3 years. Both the 17-70 & the 16-45 are on the slow side at f4 compared to the 16-50's 2.8. But IQ is fantastic throughout the zoom range for both. In terms of IQ they are close to being twins. I'm so impressed with the silence of the SDM on the 17-70 and the quick focusing....almost seems like magic after using the noisy screw actuators. I ordered my 17-70 from Willoughby's for $529 and then found it next day at B&H for $489....aaarrrggghhh!! Best bang for the buck is the DA16-45. Best zoom range option with the silence of SDM is the DA17-70. Best of luck shopping!