[RobA_Oz]

Well I just went and bought a Da* 16-50mm I should have done this years ago! Why didn't you guys say anything? :P

The trouble is, some people like it (including me) and others look down their noses at it. So, who would you like to say something?

[tromboads]

Seriously.. The Takumars are now nervous..

[skierd]

Sometimes the Internet froth over certain features or defects of any given lens or lens series gets out of hand to the point where some mediocre glass gets all the praise in the world (see the fascination with the plastic fantastic lenses aka the 50mm f1.8 lens every maker makes) while truly amazing glass that doesn't test well gets forgotten or outright dismissed.

There's more to image making than sharpness tests. Thankfully Pentax gets that, and once you get past that you'll have more fun too.

[narual]

Well I just went and bought a Da* 16-50mm I should have done this years ago! Why didn't you guys say anything? :P

Dunno. I've never really liked mine all that much. It doesn't have that magical "this is perfect right out of the camera" appeal that the 50-135 and 60-250 have for me. Most of the photos I've taken with it, it had a 1.5x teleconverter attached because I found that to be a more useful walk-around range and on a bright, sunny day, I wasn't shooting at f/2.8 anyway. Then my wife dropped my camera to the floor of the car with that lens attached, and something got knocked loose inside it so I now have a da* 16-35 or so, and I use it even less. About the only time I put it on my camera now is if I need a wide angle in the rain.

[mattb123]

I like my 16-50 but it has its flaws. If I need a wide zoom with WR it's a pretty short list to choose from!
CA and flare are my two complaints but the former is easily corrected and the latter can be avoided or used artistically. It is what it is and I get photos I like with it regularly.

[marquis1955]

Dunno. I've never really liked mine all that much. It doesn't have that magical "this is perfect right out of the camera" appeal that the 50-135 and 60-250 have for me. Most of the photos I've taken with it, it had a 1.5x teleconverter attached because I found that to be a more useful walk-around range and on a bright, sunny day, I wasn't shooting at f/2.8 anyway. Then my wife dropped my camera to the floor of the car with that lens attached, and something got knocked loose inside it so I now have a da* 16-35 or so, and I use it even less. About the only time I put it on my camera now is if I need a wide angle in the rain.

My 16-50 I like for low light wide angle as Matt said I have flare trouble often when trying to do sunrise/ sunsets at times but I also get some very nice images and it is WR. As far as low light I more often use my Sigma 18-35 and it gives me sharper images especially with the K3..

[johnc]

16-50 is very underrated. I have used it for 1000s of images, and truly respect it for landscape work in particular. The range and WR really set it apart, and it's truly sharp (especially in the centre) and very contrasty. Having 16mm in a walk-around is a real bonus! Other advantages are great colours, and a very effective lens profile in LR/ACR.

Given the flexibility and strength of the lens, the small negatives are excusable. Flare resistance is not great, and there can be low contrast/less sharpness at APSC border on occasion. I would also really like it to be parfocal. But as an 'always with you', wide, WR zoom, I am sure you will get many great images out of it!

[tromboads]

Well I suppose from my context, I've really only used primes before. I've had fun with a bunch of Super Taks, M's K's etc etc, sold them most and stayed with the Super Taks's because;

1)Usable on film bodies
2)Really not noticeable enough different from the K's and M's

So anyway, on my couch, I snap images of my bookshelf at 16, 24, 28, 35, 50mm a f2.8, zooming in on the LCD text on the spines are as sharp from 16 out to 50mm. This is seriously mental.

Initially it seems I won't have to learn what the weaknesses and strengths are at the different focal lengths. It's going to be consistent and reliable at any length. That's just incredible.

I might decided to be boring and compare the focal lengths of the Taks to the DA* but, judging by these first impressions. Why would I bother.

Gah who'm I kidding I still will as a tragic, but seriously impressed with this DA*.

[Scorpio71GR]

The DA*16-50 is a love hate relationship. It is one of my most used lenses. For me there was a learning curve with this lens. Like others have said the flare and CA can be bothersome. However for a low light walk around WR lens it pretty much is in a league of its own. I rarely go out without it in my bag. One of my favorite DA*16-50 shots.



Even wide open at f2.8

[chuck_c]

Backyard Blue Jay. 300mm with the HD DA 1.4x Teleconverter


Backyard Blue Jay by Chuck Campbell, on Flickr

[jwc77]

A few with the *55 from a vacation out to the Eastcoast...

[jwc77]

And a few more...

[zzeitg]

DA* 16-50

[narual]

My 16-50 I like for low light wide angle as Matt said I have flare trouble often when trying to do sunrise/ sunsets at times but I also get some very nice images and it is WR. As far as low light I more often use my Sigma 18-35 and it gives me sharper images especially with the K3..

Yeah. If I didn't have the 15mm limited, I'd probably have used it a lot more. Or maybe I'd use my 10-20 more. Not really sure. The 15mm is so wonderful and so small that I usually bring it with me when I'm out snapping pics without any specific purpose... used to bring the 15, 40 xs, and 50-135; now I usually bring the 15, 31, and 50-135. they do a pretty good job of covering the ranges I typically want. The 16-50 and 10-20 I only bring when I need wide WR or ultrawide respectively.

But I've seen some great pics on here with it, and I love the huge number of points it makes on light sources... if not as much as I love the perfectly sharp ones the 15mm makes.

[Scorpio71GR]

My trusty DA*16-50.


The DA*16-50 wide open at f2.8, 50mm.