SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II

mel · 04-17-2010, 04:37 PM

Congratulations. As for the other items, I did drop the bucks on a nice Hoya CP filter for mine and to be honest, I really don't use it all that much. I'm not sure I can say I've gotten my money's worth from it and I've had it for almost a year now. However, there are a couple other lenses that I'm eyeballing for purchase when the tax return comes that have that 77mm thread so I'm sure in the long run it won't be a one-lens filter.

fractal · 04-17-2010, 05:08 PM

I don't think you could go too wrong with either lens unless you got a bad copy. Anyway, congrats on the purchase and be sure to post up some shots with your new lens.

**EsBee** · 04-17-2010, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by MrPetkus

Bought the DA*

WTG! You are halfway there!

Jodokast96 · 04-17-2010, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by mel

Congratulations. As for the other items, I did drop the bucks on a nice Hoya CP filter for mine and to be honest, I really don't use it all that much. I'm not sure I can say I've gotten my money's worth from it and I've had it for almost a year now. However, there are a couple other lenses that I'm eyeballing for purchase when the tax return comes that have that 77mm thread so I'm sure in the long run it won't be a one-lens filter.

I'm in the same situation right now. I'm trying to decide between a standard screw on filter or going with a Cokin system.

**Canada_Rockies** · 04-18-2010, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Jodokast96

I'm in the same situation right now. I'm trying to decide between a standard screw on filter or going with a Cokin system.

The only disadvantage to systems such as the Cokin is the loss of the petal lens hood, and the complex set of bits and pieces to carry around. I have a now defunct similar system to the Cokin, and seldom use it.

mel · 04-18-2010, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

The only disadvantage to systems such as the Cokin is the loss of the petal lens hood, and the complex set of bits and pieces to carry around. I have a now defunct similar system to the Cokin, and seldom use it.

I like being able to plunk my lens cap back on the front as well.

MrPetkus · 04-24-2010, 06:36 PM

Well, I've had the DA* 16-50 for about a week and I'm going to start the RMA process to return it this coming Monday. I'm saddened by the whole experience.

Yes, the color is excellent, the fit and finish is superb, and it focuses whisper fast. However, none of my pictures are tack sharp. There is an endemic softness with this lens. I expected 2.8 to be soft, but at 50mm it is almost useless I stop down to at least 5.6 -- a shame since I need to go wide for those dim light shots.

Case in point - my daughter had a violin recital today - I gambled with the DA* 16-50 on a tripod; front row. Things looked decent on review using the K-x's low-res display (I should have known better). After her performance, I switched to an old Asahi Pentax-M 1:2 50mm on the K-x with manual focus at f/2. Reviewing in Lightroom right now, almost every one of those manual prime shots completely beat the pants off the 16-50 in terms of clarity and depth. Colors were about equal.

Other issues with my DA* 16-50 are significant CA and vignetting. Guess I got one of the "bad" copies.

At this point, I can go 3 routes:
1) Get another 16-50 and hope for a better copy
2) Go with my original alternative, the Tammy 17-50 2.8
3) Get a couple of good primes for this range. Based on a review of my scattered usage over this restricted focal range, I linger mostly around 25, 35, and 50.

MrPetkus · 04-25-2010, 06:42 AM

After carefully reviewing yesterday's shoot and running some tests today I confirmed my lens is back focusing. What the lens has in focus *is* sharp - just not where I want it. Not the end of the world - I'm well within the time window to return the unit so I'll just get another copy. The CA and vignetting mostly exist between 16-20mm -- that's to be expected and I can easily address that in pp. The colors rendition is indeed excellent.

I'll chronicle the experience here in case it's useful to someone else...

**Ash** · 04-25-2010, 06:56 AM

If it's not badly back-focused, then you may be able to make a camera adjustment on the focusing (not sure if this is possible with the K-x). Otherwise, a return to sender would be in order.

I can vouch that the 16-50 is is brilliant lens and worth persevering for a good copy if IQ matters to you (notwithstanding the Tamron's relatively good performance).

supertrac · 05-02-2010, 11:13 AM

Hi guys I'm new to this forum but been reading the posts for about a week now, great forum bigger than 4/3 (jumped ship from Oly, ex Nikonian back in the 90's and 4/3 user up till a year a go) even dpreview. Decided to post something about 16-50, bought from B&H received 2 days a go. I actually gambled when I placed order since too many bad copies but I gave it a try. Been testing it since I got it but unfortunately this baby needs to go back to B&H, I mean I'm not gonna exchange it (sn 9039xxx). NOPE. I just wait until pentax really, really listen and fix the problems. I have similar problems as mrpetkus mentioned in his posts but I had to add this; mine is very bad decentering! I can deal and fix the BF problem but not decentering. I just ordered a Tammy 17-50 a while ago from B&H before I wrote this post. The DA 16-50 is a great lens, if you wanna give it a chance you can, just hope you'll get a good copy. Don't be discouraged by the bad and negative reviews, if you have the bad one just exchange it, it's a awesome lens.

GeneV · 05-02-2010, 11:23 AM

For what is now twice the price of the Tammy, it would be hard for me to justify the DA*16-50. Pentax needs to rework, rewarranty and rename this lens, because the problems with it have filled this forum for too long for many of us to want to take the chance.

**Rondec** · 05-02-2010, 12:01 PM

A good copy of the 16-50 is pretty good. I know others have mentioned it, but with the lens correction feature of the K7, it becomes quite a bit more useable. On my K20, I really avoid 16mm and f2.8, but if I am shooting on the K7, the distortion is better and the little bit of vignetting that I see goes away. Obviously this doesn't diminish the issues others have had with front focusing, back focusing, SDM, and decentering, but it is one reason to consider it. Just thought I'd post a brick wall shot with lens correction on and with it off.

Shot hand held, so not exactly straight -- sorry about that.

05-02-2010, 11:13 AM	#25
supertrac Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: BIGTX Photos: Albums Posts: 53	Hi guys I'm new to this forum but been reading the posts for about a week now, great forum bigger than 4/3 (jumped ship from Oly, ex Nikonian back in the 90's and 4/3 user up till a year a go) even dpreview. Decided to post something about 16-50, bought from B&H received 2 days a go. I actually gambled when I placed order since too many bad copies but I gave it a try. Been testing it since I got it but unfortunately this baby needs to go back to B&H, I mean I'm not gonna exchange it (sn 9039xxx). NOPE. I just wait until pentax really, really listen and fix the problems. I have similar problems as mrpetkus mentioned in his posts but I had to add this; mine is very bad decentering! I can deal and fix the BF problem but not decentering. I just ordered a Tammy 17-50 a while ago from B&H before I wrote this post. The DA 16-50 is a great lens, if you wanna give it a chance you can, just hope you'll get a good copy. Don't be discouraged by the bad and negative reviews, if you have the bad one just exchange it, it's a awesome lens. Last edited by supertrac; 05-02-2010 at 11:19 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: [US] K20D, Metz 58 AF-1 Flash, FA 50mm 1.4, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Tamron 18-250m	jasonfen	Sold Items	11	06-20-2010 06:32 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
For Sale - Sold: SMCP-M 50mm 1.4........SMCP-M 50mm 2.0........Helios-44 58mm 2.0	Tdo0003	Sold Items	3	06-09-2008 08:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMCP-A 135mm 2.8........SMCP-A 50mm 1.7	Tdo0003	Sold Items	0	06-08-2008 05:16 AM

04-17-2010, 04:37 PM	#16
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	Congratulations. As for the other items, I did drop the bucks on a nice Hoya CP filter for mine and to be honest, I really don't use it all that much. I'm not sure I can say I've gotten my money's worth from it and I've had it for almost a year now. However, there are a couple other lenses that I'm eyeballing for purchase when the tax return comes that have that 77mm thread so I'm sure in the long run it won't be a one-lens filter.

04-17-2010, 05:08 PM	#17
fractal Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,547	I don't think you could go too wrong with either lens unless you got a bad copy. Anyway, congrats on the purchase and be sure to post up some shots with your new lens.

04-17-2010, 07:44 PM	#18
EsBee Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: National Capital Region Posts: 739	Originally posted by MrPetkus Bought the DA* WTG! You are halfway there!

04-17-2010, 10:02 PM	#19
Jodokast96 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Erial, NJ USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,134	Originally posted by mel Congratulations. As for the other items, I did drop the bucks on a nice Hoya CP filter for mine and to be honest, I really don't use it all that much. I'm not sure I can say I've gotten my money's worth from it and I've had it for almost a year now. However, there are a couple other lenses that I'm eyeballing for purchase when the tax return comes that have that 77mm thread so I'm sure in the long run it won't be a one-lens filter. I'm in the same situation right now. I'm trying to decide between a standard screw on filter or going with a Cokin system.

04-18-2010, 09:51 AM	#20
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Jodokast96 I'm in the same situation right now. I'm trying to decide between a standard screw on filter or going with a Cokin system. The only disadvantage to systems such as the Cokin is the loss of the petal lens hood, and the complex set of bits and pieces to carry around. I have a now defunct similar system to the Cokin, and seldom use it.

04-18-2010, 12:59 PM	#21
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies The only disadvantage to systems such as the Cokin is the loss of the petal lens hood, and the complex set of bits and pieces to carry around. I have a now defunct similar system to the Cokin, and seldom use it. I like being able to plunk my lens cap back on the front as well.

04-24-2010, 06:36 PM	#22
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387 Original Poster	Well, I've had the DA* 16-50 for about a week and I'm going to start the RMA process to return it this coming Monday. I'm saddened by the whole experience. Yes, the color is excellent, the fit and finish is superb, and it focuses whisper fast. However, none of my pictures are tack sharp. There is an endemic softness with this lens. I expected 2.8 to be soft, but at 50mm it is almost useless I stop down to at least 5.6 -- a shame since I need to go wide for those dim light shots. Case in point - my daughter had a violin recital today - I gambled with the DA* 16-50 on a tripod; front row. Things looked decent on review using the K-x's low-res display (I should have known better). After her performance, I switched to an old Asahi Pentax-M 1:2 50mm on the K-x with manual focus at f/2. Reviewing in Lightroom right now, almost every one of those manual prime shots completely beat the pants off the 16-50 in terms of clarity and depth. Colors were about equal. Other issues with my DA* 16-50 are significant CA and vignetting. Guess I got one of the "bad" copies. At this point, I can go 3 routes: 1) Get another 16-50 and hope for a better copy 2) Go with my original alternative, the Tammy 17-50 2.8 3) Get a couple of good primes for this range. Based on a review of my scattered usage over this restricted focal range, I linger mostly around 25, 35, and 50.

04-25-2010, 06:42 AM	#23
MrPetkus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 387 Original Poster	After carefully reviewing yesterday's shoot and running some tests today I confirmed my lens is back focusing. What the lens has in focus is sharp - just not where I want it. Not the end of the world - I'm well within the time window to return the unit so I'll just get another copy. The CA and vignetting mostly exist between 16-20mm -- that's to be expected and I can easily address that in pp. The colors rendition is indeed excellent. I'll chronicle the experience here in case it's useful to someone else...

04-25-2010, 06:56 AM	#24
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	If it's not badly back-focused, then you may be able to make a camera adjustment on the focusing (not sure if this is possible with the K-x). Otherwise, a return to sender would be in order. I can vouch that the 16-50 is is brilliant lens and worth persevering for a good copy if IQ matters to you (notwithstanding the Tamron's relatively good performance).

05-02-2010, 11:23 AM	#26
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	For what is now twice the price of the Tammy, it would be hard for me to justify the DA*16-50. Pentax needs to rework, rewarranty and rename this lens, because the problems with it have filled this forum for too long for many of us to want to take the chance.

05-02-2010, 12:01 PM	#27
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	A good copy of the 16-50 is pretty good. I know others have mentioned it, but with the lens correction feature of the K7, it becomes quite a bit more useable. On my K20, I really avoid 16mm and f2.8, but if I am shooting on the K7, the distortion is better and the little bit of vignetting that I see goes away. Obviously this doesn't diminish the issues others have had with front focusing, back focusing, SDM, and decentering, but it is one reason to consider it. Just thought I'd post a brick wall shot with lens correction on and with it off. Shot hand held, so not exactly straight -- sorry about that.