.

And here they are! Photos of the happy 16-50 buyers, all 4 of them!








Actually, I meant 'photos by happy 16-50 buyers', my mistake

(photo above is a crop of jpeg snapshot taken with 16-50, I was impressed with sharpness/color. And that skin tone!

Anyone else have good 16-50 examples they'd like to post?


.

[rmtagg]

I don't but wow is that nice quality!

[jsherman999]

.


Actually, turns out it's a busload of happy customers (larger crop) :

[daacon]

tack sharp - glad to see you have a good one as it is a great focal range.

[jsherman999]

Thanks, it's becoming my most-used lens.

Anyone else? 16-50? Good shots?

(crickets)

.

[spyglass]

Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. Pentax made the 16-45mm f4, now they make a 16-50mm f2.8. Which one was rumored to have focusing issue (or have legends of duds amongst their production runs). I thought it was the 16-45 that was suspect.


Thanks for any clarity,

[jsherman999]

Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. Pentax made the 16-45mm f4, now they make a 16-50mm f2.8. Which one was rumored to have focusing issue (or have legends of duds amongst their production runs). I thought it was the 16-45 that was suspect.


Thanks for any clarity,

No - the 16-50 f/2.8 is the often-faulty one. By almost all accounts, the 16-45 f/4 is an excellent, sharp lens with few defective copies out there.

However, if you do get a good 16-50, it's arguably the best in it's class among any manufacturer (class being 16-18mm to 45-55mm f/2.8)


.

[codiac2600]

I hate my copy... look at this crappy image at F2.8:


And this one at f4.5...


Ugh I hate this lens so much!

[jsherman999]

Wow. Codiac, nice. You obviously have a stellar copy & you make use of it very well there, she comes out of the screen and grabs you.

Was that first one up close at 16mm?

[hinckc]

Good idea to create a thread of good 16-50 shots. Talk about a bad rap!
First 2 @ f/2.8, the first because the light was low, the second just because I could.

This one was also posted to m8o's wildly successful "pet-a-day" thread, but I'll stick it here anyhow:






And here's a self-portrait @ f/4.5. I'm really getting to like MTF program line, now that I've got faster glass. Sometimes f/2.8 just isn't required...


-Chris

[jsherman999]

Nice, Chris. The dog looks like he figures he's in trouble for something.

Here's a fairly tight crop. My first copy couldn't focus like this, so I could never see this level of resolution without manually focusing
it. This copy is effortlessly spot-on:




Then there's the easy IQ at 16mm:

[metalfab]

Nice work everyone.
I think I'm going to save up for its big brother, the DA* 50-135 hopefully within a year. Mortgage comes first ...or if I'm impatient the DA 55-300

[silverelantra]

(sigh) why it has to be so expensive ??

[metalfab]

(sigh) why it has to be so expensive ??

Because: f/2.8, weather sealed, SDM, IF ...

[Tyama]

Two handheld photos taken while in Akiyoshi Cave in Yamaguchi Japan. The cave was fairly dim. K20D 16mm f/2.8.

1st pic at ISO 1600 1/3 sec and 2nd pic at ISO 3200 1/6 sec