Question for 16-50mm owners

Kresica · 12-02-2007, 03:38 AM

Yep, I compared it with my 16-45 on K10D, in low light conditions, not so much faster as expected. Not sharper at all.

On a side note, the DA* 50-135 = awesome too.

neil · 12-02-2007, 07:26 AM

Sounds like you just didn't get a good copy at all. I have had the *16-50 for just over a month now and have been very impressed with it. The focusing is quick and accurate and it is extremely sharp. I am comparing this to my DA 14mm, 31mm Ltd and Tamron 90mm Di. It's a versatile lens and weather-proof to boot, shooting in the rain/snow is a bonus.

A couple of small problems that I have found using it are:

Vignetting at 16mm wide open, stopped down to f4 and it is fine. Easily correctable in post as well.
A little more barrel distortion at 16mm then I would prefer as well, again correctable but the DA 14mm is superior in this respect.

I am not sure what to suggest, maybe try one again at a different shop when you get a chance?

**rogerstg** · 12-02-2007, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by dugrant153

I'm finding the image quality to be not as tack sharp as my primes in general. Mind you, though, that I found the contrast and color to be excellent on the DA* 16-50. The way I did this was shoot a whole bunch of shots with the DA* 16-50 lens, then put my prime lens on and take the same shot.

Quote:

I was hoping the DA* 16-50 would replace my very much used DA 18-55 kit lens

Shouldn't you be comparing the DA* to the lens you wish to replace - the kit lens? FWIW, I'm not surprised that the DA* does not have the same IQ as a limited prime in it's sweet spot.

Lenses, boats and women are about compromises.

pentkon52 · 12-02-2007, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by neil

Sounds like you just didn't get a good copy at all. I have had the *16-50 for just over a month now and have been very impressed with it. The focusing is quick and accurate and it is extremely sharp. I am comparing this to my DA 14mm, 31mm Ltd and Tamron 90mm Di. It's a versatile lens and weather-proof to boot, shooting in the rain/snow is a bonus.

A couple of small problems that I have found using it are:

Vignetting at 16mm wide open, stopped down to f4 and it is fine. Easily correctable in post as well.
A little more barrel distortion at 16mm then I would prefer as well, again correctable but the DA 14mm is superior in this respect.

I am not sure what to suggest, maybe try one again at a different shop when you get a chance?

Could be, i know the 50-200 had good ones bad one issues at first.

Several member of the PDML have the 16-50 and are showing excellent images with it.

See if you can try another one. I'll bet thats it.

Dave

dugrant153 · 12-02-2007, 09:42 AM

the thing is I tried two different copies at two different locations and found the images to be consistently 'very good', but not spectacular. This is what has me perplexed, as I was thinking the second copy would be better.

I admit that I do like the lens. But I guess I was expecting it to be like the 50-135. That lens I simply picked up, snapped a few pictures, and wanted to buy on the spot. The DA* 16-50 wasn't like that for me. Twice.

Maybe I was just really unlucky?

Quote:

Shouldn't you be comparing the DA* to the lens you wish to replace - the kit lens? FWIW, I'm not surprised that the DA* does not have the same IQ as a limited prime in it's sweet spot.

I am, essentially. I was hoping to replace my primes with a single 16-50 (I have an M28, DA40 Ltd and M50 in that range. Was looking to get a wider angle prime but thinking I'd put the money towards the DA* 16-50).

The second time around I forgot to bring my DA40 Limited and instead only shot with my SMC-M lenses and found the results to be as per what I mentioned above.

Is everyone shooting with the K10D w/ a DA* 16-50? I'm thinking that maybe it's my K100D non-Super that may be causing the lens to not reach it's full potential?

benjikan · 12-02-2007, 02:29 PM

Well, as the 16-50 will be my principal lens for my shoot tomorrow that with the 12-24, we shall see.

Will be a 12 page fashion story in West East Magazine...

Maxington · 12-02-2007, 06:29 PM

I think people are constantly being unfair on the DA* 16-50; its a zoom, so it can't be compared against primes, and its a really wide angle zoom, which is far more difficult to design for than 50-135 range, and its a constant f2.8, weathersealed and only costs ~$1000. Try getting that combination of factors from another brand anywhere near that price!

Not an attack against the OP, just what I've noticed on a lot of message boards ever since it was released. People are just expecting prime-quality sharpness across the entire image, fast fstop and no flaws like vignetting and a dozen other factors from a very difficult focal length range at a cheap price.

Poor lens can never live up to that!

wlachan · 12-02-2007, 06:35 PM

Perhaps some lucky DA*16-50/2.8 owners might post some full size 16/2.8 & 50/2.8 samples in jpeg 10 files just to demostrate how sharp it is? So far it has been all talking and small tiny jpegs which prove nothing.

jgredline · 12-02-2007, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by dugrant153

Hey folks,

So I was trying out the DA* 15-60 (different copies) at different places and found the image quality to be very good but not spectacular. I found the images to be a bit soft with autofocus, and even with manual focus they were still not as sharp as what I've been used to.

I've been shooting with SMC-M prime lenses and a DA 40 Limited and absolutely love them. However, I've seen some shots from DA* lenses here and figured that the 16-50 would fit my bill. However, for some reason, I'm finding the image quality to be not as tack sharp as my primes in general. Mind you, though, that I found the contrast and color to be excellent on the DA* 16-50. The way I did this was shoot a whole bunch of shots with the DA* 16-50 lens, then put my prime lens on and take the same shot.

I was hoping the DA* 16-50 would replace my very much used DA 18-55 kit lens, but the results I'm getting will probably have me stay with my prime lenses for now. Perhaps it's because I'm using a K100D to take pictures with the Pentax DA* 16-50?

On a side note, the DA* 50-135 = awesome.

Post some pics and lets see...I have the lens and while I have not used it much, it is sharp....

Maxington · 12-02-2007, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by wlachan

Perhaps some lucky DA*16-50/2.8 owners might post some full size 16/2.8 & 50/2.8 samples in jpeg 10 files just to demostrate how sharp it is? So far it has been all talking and small tiny jpegs which prove nothing.

I did a quick test of 16-50 vs the well regarded Tamron 28-75, at 50mm f2.8. Naturally I couldn't test 16mm vs 16mm, only down to 28mm.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/11820-da-16-50...n-28-75-a.html

Why are you only asking for f2.8?

wlachan · 12-02-2007, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Maxington

I did a quick test of 16-50 vs the well regarded Tamron 28-75, at 50mm f2.8. Naturally I couldn't test 16mm vs 16mm, only down to 28mm.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/11820-da-16-50...n-28-75-a.html

Why are you only asking for f2.8?

Thanks for the link but I have reservation on these samples because they were taken at very close distance with shallow DOF. I was thinking something at normal shooting distance, or even better, some even scenery shots which can illustrate the sharpness down to the corners. But I would imagine most people might use this lens wide open between 1-3 metres for some indoor conditions. Actually, some f4 comparsion shots between the DA* & DA would be interesting too, but not that I am going to trade my DA anytime soon.

Maxington · 12-02-2007, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by wlachan

Thanks for the link but I have reservation on these samples because they were taken at very close distance with shallow DOF. I was thinking something at normal shooting distance, or even better, some even scenery shots which can illustrate the sharpness down to the corners. But I would imagine most people might use this lens wide open between 1-3 metres for some indoor conditions. Actually, some f4 comparsion shots between the DA* & DA would be interesting too, but not that I am going to trade my DA anytime soon.

Well you wouldn't often shoot scenery at f2.8. I pretty much avoid going down to 2.8 unless I have to, its not really a bokeh lens. Its a brilliant landscape/travel lens, just spent 2 weeks with it travelling, I didn't need any of my other lenses. It far exceeded the Tamron on my girlfriends K100D in contrast and sharpness, she was getting annoyed about it.

My test was wide open at 1-3 metres, I was probably 1.5m away from those objects.

I still think people are still expecting far too much from this lens, its not the holy grail of lenses or anything.

benjikan · 12-03-2007, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

Perhaps some lucky DA*16-50/2.8 owners might post some full size 16/2.8 & 50/2.8 samples in jpeg 10 files just to demostrate how sharp it is? So far it has been all talking and small tiny jpegs which prove nothing.

I already have; handheld at 1/15th of a second 250 iso f2.8 at 16mm here: Unfortunately a medium compressed jpeg to be able to fit on this web site which is a maximum 1 meg file that opens to 28 meg.

FOCUSSED ON THE NUMBER "3" at a slight angle of about 10 degrees above the telephone.

User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous

Ben

wlachan · 12-03-2007, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I already have; handheld at 1/15th of a second 250 iso f2.8 at 16mm here: Unfortunately a medium compressed jpeg to be able to fit on this web site which is a maximum 1 meg file that opens to 28 meg.

FOCUSSED ON THE NUMBER "3" at a slight angle of about 10 degrees above the telephone.

User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous

Ben

Okay #3 looks good Ben, but how about something with less bokeh but more details to show off what it is capable of near the edges and corners? I know I am hard to please but looks like you have a good copy.

Peter Zack · 12-03-2007, 07:35 PM

I have had very little to bitch about with the quality of Pentax lenses or gear. But I won't be a DA* 16-50mm owner till I'm sure all the bad ones are fixed or gone.

I just got my version of this lens today and it back focuses like crazy. I took some test shots at f2.8 after I used the lens for a day and found the results less than stellar. Wide shots seemed fine (large DOF) but zoomed in looked soft so I did some basic tests and the results are here:

Islandviewsphoto - DA* 16-50 back focus test.*

As you can see from the chart, the lens was off by about 22mm. The camera/lens were set up on a tripod and abot 14 inches from the sheet at a 45 degree angle. Spot focus was used and shot at 1/500 f2.8 MLU to avoid blur. The plant was about 3 feet away and again shot at f2.8. The bud in foucus was about 3 inches behind the focus point.

Very dissapointed for a lens of this cost. I have 15 other lenses including 3 limiteds. No issues with any of them on either body so I'm not going to send the camera and lens in to be calibrated and risk screwing up all the other lenses. Plus I've got a shoot in 2 weeks and another in 4 weeks and can't have the cameras gone for god knows how long.

Alas, the lens will go back and since I'm in an area where there are no Pentax dealers, this was an online purchase. Out about $100.00 for nothing.

View Poll Results: Is this DA*16-50mm good or bad?
Keep it -- it's good.	23	88.46%
Return it or send it in for repair.	3	11.54%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

12-03-2007, 12:07 AM	#73
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by wlachan Perhaps some lucky DA16-50/2.8 owners might post some full size 16/2.8 & 50/2.8 samples in jpeg 10 files just to demostrate how sharp it is? So far it has been all talking and small tiny jpegs which prove nothing. I already have; handheld at 1/15th of a second 250 iso f2.8 at 16mm here: Unfortunately a medium compressed jpeg to be able to fit on this web site which is a maximum 1 meg file that opens to 28 meg. FOCUSSED ON THE NUMBER "3" at a slight angle of about 10 degrees above the telephone. User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous Ben Last edited by benjikan; 12-03-2007 at 12:14 AM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question to K-5 Owners	kevinschoenmakers	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	3	10-19-2010 06:40 PM
Question for K-X owners.	dimebagdave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	04-29-2010 05:17 AM
PZ-1P question(for owners)	LongLiveVelvia	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	3	10-09-2009 10:51 AM
A question for K7 owners	dafiryde	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	09-05-2009 02:52 AM
Question for FA 28-70/4 owners	Ivan Glisin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	08-13-2007 01:08 PM

12-02-2007, 03:38 AM	#61
Kresica Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Photos: Gallery Posts: 105	Yep, I compared it with my 16-45 on K10D, in low light conditions, not so much faster as expected. Not sharper at all. On a side note, the DA* 50-135 = awesome too.

12-02-2007, 07:26 AM	#62
neil Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 182	Sounds like you just didn't get a good copy at all. I have had the *16-50 for just over a month now and have been very impressed with it. The focusing is quick and accurate and it is extremely sharp. I am comparing this to my DA 14mm, 31mm Ltd and Tamron 90mm Di. It's a versatile lens and weather-proof to boot, shooting in the rain/snow is a bonus. A couple of small problems that I have found using it are: Vignetting at 16mm wide open, stopped down to f4 and it is fine. Easily correctable in post as well. A little more barrel distortion at 16mm then I would prefer as well, again correctable but the DA 14mm is superior in this respect. I am not sure what to suggest, maybe try one again at a different shop when you get a chance?

12-02-2007, 08:23 AM	#63
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by dugrant153 I'm finding the image quality to be not as tack sharp as my primes in general. Mind you, though, that I found the contrast and color to be excellent on the DA* 16-50. The way I did this was shoot a whole bunch of shots with the DA* 16-50 lens, then put my prime lens on and take the same shot. Quote: I was hoping the DA* 16-50 would replace my very much used DA 18-55 kit lens Shouldn't you be comparing the DA* to the lens you wish to replace - the kit lens? FWIW, I'm not surprised that the DA* does not have the same IQ as a limited prime in it's sweet spot. Lenses, boats and women are about compromises.

12-02-2007, 08:23 AM	#64
pentkon52 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: York Region Canada Posts: 641	Originally posted by neil Sounds like you just didn't get a good copy at all. I have had the *16-50 for just over a month now and have been very impressed with it. The focusing is quick and accurate and it is extremely sharp. I am comparing this to my DA 14mm, 31mm Ltd and Tamron 90mm Di. It's a versatile lens and weather-proof to boot, shooting in the rain/snow is a bonus. A couple of small problems that I have found using it are: Vignetting at 16mm wide open, stopped down to f4 and it is fine. Easily correctable in post as well. A little more barrel distortion at 16mm then I would prefer as well, again correctable but the DA 14mm is superior in this respect. I am not sure what to suggest, maybe try one again at a different shop when you get a chance? Could be, i know the 50-200 had good ones bad one issues at first. Several member of the PDML have the 16-50 and are showing excellent images with it. See if you can try another one. I'll bet thats it. Dave

12-02-2007, 09:42 AM	#65
dugrant153 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,059	the thing is I tried two different copies at two different locations and found the images to be consistently 'very good', but not spectacular. This is what has me perplexed, as I was thinking the second copy would be better. I admit that I do like the lens. But I guess I was expecting it to be like the 50-135. That lens I simply picked up, snapped a few pictures, and wanted to buy on the spot. The DA* 16-50 wasn't like that for me. Twice. Maybe I was just really unlucky? Quote: Shouldn't you be comparing the DA* to the lens you wish to replace - the kit lens? FWIW, I'm not surprised that the DA* does not have the same IQ as a limited prime in it's sweet spot. I am, essentially. I was hoping to replace my primes with a single 16-50 (I have an M28, DA40 Ltd and M50 in that range. Was looking to get a wider angle prime but thinking I'd put the money towards the DA* 16-50). The second time around I forgot to bring my DA40 Limited and instead only shot with my SMC-M lenses and found the results to be as per what I mentioned above. Is everyone shooting with the K10D w/ a DA* 16-50? I'm thinking that maybe it's my K100D non-Super that may be causing the lens to not reach it's full potential?

12-02-2007, 02:29 PM	#66
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Well, as the 16-50 will be my principal lens for my shoot tomorrow that with the 12-24, we shall see. Will be a 12 page fashion story in West East Magazine...

12-02-2007, 06:29 PM	#67
Maxington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 255	I think people are constantly being unfair on the DA* 16-50; its a zoom, so it can't be compared against primes, and its a really wide angle zoom, which is far more difficult to design for than 50-135 range, and its a constant f2.8, weathersealed and only costs ~$1000. Try getting that combination of factors from another brand anywhere near that price! Not an attack against the OP, just what I've noticed on a lot of message boards ever since it was released. People are just expecting prime-quality sharpness across the entire image, fast fstop and no flaws like vignetting and a dozen other factors from a very difficult focal length range at a cheap price. Poor lens can never live up to that!

12-02-2007, 06:35 PM	#68
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Perhaps some lucky DA*16-50/2.8 owners might post some full size 16/2.8 & 50/2.8 samples in jpeg 10 files just to demostrate how sharp it is? So far it has been all talking and small tiny jpegs which prove nothing.

12-02-2007, 07:08 PM	#69
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by dugrant153 Hey folks, So I was trying out the DA* 15-60 (different copies) at different places and found the image quality to be very good but not spectacular. I found the images to be a bit soft with autofocus, and even with manual focus they were still not as sharp as what I've been used to. I've been shooting with SMC-M prime lenses and a DA 40 Limited and absolutely love them. However, I've seen some shots from DA* lenses here and figured that the 16-50 would fit my bill. However, for some reason, I'm finding the image quality to be not as tack sharp as my primes in general. Mind you, though, that I found the contrast and color to be excellent on the DA* 16-50. The way I did this was shoot a whole bunch of shots with the DA* 16-50 lens, then put my prime lens on and take the same shot. I was hoping the DA* 16-50 would replace my very much used DA 18-55 kit lens, but the results I'm getting will probably have me stay with my prime lenses for now. Perhaps it's because I'm using a K100D to take pictures with the Pentax DA* 16-50? On a side note, the DA* 50-135 = awesome. Post some pics and lets see...I have the lens and while I have not used it much, it is sharp....

12-02-2007, 07:29 PM	#70
Maxington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 255	Originally posted by wlachan Perhaps some lucky DA*16-50/2.8 owners might post some full size 16/2.8 & 50/2.8 samples in jpeg 10 files just to demostrate how sharp it is? So far it has been all talking and small tiny jpegs which prove nothing. I did a quick test of 16-50 vs the well regarded Tamron 28-75, at 50mm f2.8. Naturally I couldn't test 16mm vs 16mm, only down to 28mm. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/11820-da-16-50...n-28-75-a.html Why are you only asking for f2.8?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2007, 07:52 PM	#71
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by Maxington I did a quick test of 16-50 vs the well regarded Tamron 28-75, at 50mm f2.8. Naturally I couldn't test 16mm vs 16mm, only down to 28mm. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/11820-da-16-50...n-28-75-a.html Why are you only asking for f2.8? Thanks for the link but I have reservation on these samples because they were taken at very close distance with shallow DOF. I was thinking something at normal shooting distance, or even better, some even scenery shots which can illustrate the sharpness down to the corners. But I would imagine most people might use this lens wide open between 1-3 metres for some indoor conditions. Actually, some f4 comparsion shots between the DA* & DA would be interesting too, but not that I am going to trade my DA anytime soon.

12-02-2007, 08:17 PM	#72
Maxington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 255	Originally posted by wlachan Thanks for the link but I have reservation on these samples because they were taken at very close distance with shallow DOF. I was thinking something at normal shooting distance, or even better, some even scenery shots which can illustrate the sharpness down to the corners. But I would imagine most people might use this lens wide open between 1-3 metres for some indoor conditions. Actually, some f4 comparsion shots between the DA* & DA would be interesting too, but not that I am going to trade my DA anytime soon. Well you wouldn't often shoot scenery at f2.8. I pretty much avoid going down to 2.8 unless I have to, its not really a bokeh lens. Its a brilliant landscape/travel lens, just spent 2 weeks with it travelling, I didn't need any of my other lenses. It far exceeded the Tamron on my girlfriends K100D in contrast and sharpness, she was getting annoyed about it. My test was wide open at 1-3 metres, I was probably 1.5m away from those objects. I still think people are still expecting far too much from this lens, its not the holy grail of lenses or anything.

12-03-2007, 01:38 AM	#74
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by benjikan I already have; handheld at 1/15th of a second 250 iso f2.8 at 16mm here: Unfortunately a medium compressed jpeg to be able to fit on this web site which is a maximum 1 meg file that opens to 28 meg. FOCUSSED ON THE NUMBER "3" at a slight angle of about 10 degrees above the telephone. User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous Ben Okay #3 looks good Ben, but how about something with less bokeh but more details to show off what it is capable of near the edges and corners? I know I am hard to please but looks like you have a good copy.

12-03-2007, 07:35 PM	#75
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	I have had very little to bitch about with the quality of Pentax lenses or gear. But I won't be a DA* 16-50mm owner till I'm sure all the bad ones are fixed or gone. I just got my version of this lens today and it back focuses like crazy. I took some test shots at f2.8 after I used the lens for a day and found the results less than stellar. Wide shots seemed fine (large DOF) but zoomed in looked soft so I did some basic tests and the results are here: Islandviewsphoto - DA* 16-50 back focus test.* As you can see from the chart, the lens was off by about 22mm. The camera/lens were set up on a tripod and abot 14 inches from the sheet at a 45 degree angle. Spot focus was used and shot at 1/500 f2.8 MLU to avoid blur. The plant was about 3 feet away and again shot at f2.8. The bud in foucus was about 3 inches behind the focus point. Very dissapointed for a lens of this cost. I have 15 other lenses including 3 limiteds. No issues with any of them on either body so I'm not going to send the camera and lens in to be calibrated and risk screwing up all the other lenses. Plus I've got a shoot in 2 weeks and another in 4 weeks and can't have the cameras gone for god knows how long. Alas, the lens will go back and since I'm in an area where there are no Pentax dealers, this was an online purchase. Out about $100.00 for nothing.