[One3rdEV]

It's frankly shocking to me how few comments there have been from owners of the lens.

Totally agree! And by a general lack of photos from early adopters also!

Unfortunately I am not in circumstances to be able to make such a purchase. But as an owner of the 18-135mm and the Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 with Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 since 2012... I've been so excited and enthusiastic for the release of this lens... and then its been practically a flat line ^^^1_____ as far as early adopter feedback regarding this should-be top-notch typically important lens.

___
PS: Ok- well to be fair... I'll admit that I'm guilty of being terrible with taking effort to share as well. In spite of the fact that I totally enjoy and appreciate all you regulars around here who do!!

---

Last edited by One3rdEV; 10-04-2021 at 08:14 PM. Reason: Confessional ;)

[superdave]

My second copy should arrive today... I keep my fingers crossed that this one is not decentered.

Are any other early adopters also have had decentered copy?

[Sandy Hancock]

Are any other early adopters also have had decentered copy?

I don't test my lenses unless real world use suggests a problem.

There are no such suspicions for this lens.

Wide open:







Stopped all the way down to f/3.2

[StigVidar]

I don't test my lenses unless real world use suggests a problem.

There are no such suspicions for this lens.

Same here. Mine was some sort of a jaw dropping experience. I expected it to be better than the old one, but not that it was so much better.

[superdave]

I don't test my lenses unless real world use suggests a problem.

There are no such suspicions for this lens.

Same here. Mine was some sort of a jaw dropping experience. I expected it to be better than the old one, but not that it was so much better.

Cool, thanks for your answers!
On my first copy, the left side was obviously very soft/blurry from the middle of the frame (even at f/8) and the right side was perfect up to the last pixel and from f/2.8.
And it was the opposite when I rotate the camera 180°.

[BigMackCam]

Cool, thanks for your answers!
On my first copy, the left side was obviously very soft/blurry from the middle of the frame (even at f/8) and the right side was perfect up to the last pixel and from f/2.8.
And it was the opposite when I rotate the camera 180°.

That sounds more like field tilt.

From time-to-time I re-read Roger Cicala's excellent article on how he tests his own lenses:

Roger Cicala: why I don't use an MTF bench to test my own lenses: Digital Photography Review

One of his statements in particular sticks in my mind:

A large field tilt in a prime lens is unusual while a field tilt at some focal lengths of a zoom is pretty common. (I've seen 45 degree field tilts in zooms, but 10 degrees or so is routine.) If you return your zoom lens to the store for exchange, the replacement will probably have a different field tilt at another focal length.

Hopefully your replacement lens will be much, much better than the last... but expecting perfection on any zoom may be an exercise in futility. Unless I'd go with Sandy's method of shooting normally with it, and if you don't see any obvious problems, assume it's fine

EDIT: I have a couple of zoom lenses (not in K-mount) that have pretty obvious field tilt when chart-tested at close range (it's especially noticeable using focus peaking). It bugged me at first, but for all practical purposes it's not noticeable when shooting normally. Now I just enjoy those lenses...

[superdave]

e-to-time I re-read Roger Cicala's excellent article on how he tests his own lenses:
Roger Cicala: why I don't use an MTF bench to test my own lenses: Digital Photography Review

Its possible that it is a field tilt, I don't know and I don't care what the name of the issue is
I just want that at f/8 the two sides of my images are equally sharp (or soft) as I do mainly landscape work.

In an article of Roger Cicala I read something about manufacturer tolerance of 5° tilt on lens and camera.
He said if your camera have +5° and the lens have -5°, that is inside manufacturer tolerance and +5-5 will cancel each other and produce perfect images, but if this is +5 and +5... that will be a problem.

As I often have issues when purchasing lenses, I can't be sure but I suspect that my K-3II should be close to the tolerance limit (or I am really unlucky)... and its very anoying when purchasing lens.
- My first 11-18 was very soft on the extreme left side, my second was perfectly balanced.
- My first Sigma 18-35 was perfectly balanced (but has focus issue), the second was soft on left (as first 16-50), the third copy was the opposite (soft on right side)...
- My First 20-40 was very soft on extreme left, second was well balanced.
- The only 16-85 I tried was balanced... (but I expected better performance...)
And all my current lenses was balanced (70Ltd, 300, 50mm, 35mmn, my old 12-24).

16-50mm is be the most expensive lens I purchased, and except the "tilt" issue (if I only look at right side of images), it look like the best performing standard lens I tried so far (better than 11-18, same or better IQ than Sigma 18-35). Really hope the second one will work well on my K-3II.

Attached Images

 

[BigMackCam]

Its possible that it is a field tilt, I don't know and I don't care what the name of the issue is

Fair enough. I like to know the terms for these things, as I consider it part of my learning...

I just want that at f/8 the two sides of my images are equally sharp (or soft) as I do mainly landscape work.

Sharp on both sides should be possible, for sure... expected, even, especially with this class of lens. Equally sharp (or soft) is a bigger ask. You might get that (or at least perceive it), but in a zoom design you'll be a lucky man if both sides are absolutely equal. Good enough is what I aim for. YMMV.

As I often have issues when purchasing lenses, I can't be sure but I suspect that my K-3II should be close to the tolerance limit (or I am really unlucky)... and its very anoying when purchasing lens.
- My first 11-18 was very soft on the extreme left side, my second was perfectly balanced.
- My first Sigma 18-35 was perfectly balanced (but has focus issue), the second was soft on left (as first 16-50), the third copy was the opposite (soft on right side)...
- My First 20-40 was very soft on extreme left, second was well balanced.
- The only 16-85 I tried was balanced... (but I expected better performance...)
And all my current lenses was balanced (70Ltd, 300, 50mm, 35mmn, my old 12-24).

I don't think you're any unluckier than the rest of us, frankly. Many folks simply don't look at their images as closely or critically as others, and happily use lenses that you or I might reject. I've had several lenses I've either sent straight back to the retailer for replacement or refund, or decided to keep and send to the service centre for adjustment. It happens with all types of lens, but especially zooms. All of the lenses I now own are good; a few aren't 100% perfectly balanced, but they're well within my expectations and produce beautiful images in real shooting scenarios.

Your crops do seem to show a great deal of softness on the left side compared to the right, assuming the foliage was at the same distance on each and we're looking at the same magnification of crops. I expect a little softness of varying levels, and perhaps not perfectly balanced, in the outer 1/3rd of the frame, but if it was really bad or extended into the central 2/3rds of the frame, I'd have sent it back too..

16-50mm is be the most expensive lens I purchased, and except the "tilt" issue (if I only look at right side of images), it look like the best performing standard lens I tried so far (better than 11-18, same or better IQ than Sigma 18-35). Really hope the second one will work well on my K-3II.

I understand, and I think you've a right to expect excellent IQ from this level of lens. Perfection is theoretically possible, but unlikely given all the moving parts in a zoom lens, and the manufacturing tolerances therein. Still, if not perfect you should expect it to perform well in the left, right, upper and lower portions of the frame.

Good luck, and let us know how you get on.

[reh321]

That sounds more like field tilt.

From time-to-time I re-read Roger Cicala's excellent article on how he tests his own lenses:

Roger Cicala: why I don't use an MTF bench to test my own lenses: Digital Photography Review

One of his statements in particular sticks in my mind:



Hopefully your replacement lens will be much, much better than the last... but expecting perfection on any zoom may be an exercise in futility. Unless I'd go with Sandy's method of shooting normally with it, and if you don't see any obvious problems, assume it's fine

EDIT: I have a couple of zoom lenses (not in K-mount) that have pretty obvious field tilt when chart-tested at close range (it's especially noticeable using focus peaking). It bugged me at first, but for all practical purposes it's not noticeable when shooting normally. Now I just enjoy those lenses...

I haven’t had noticeable problems with any zoom lens - and I don’t go around looking for problems.
If they aren’t noticeable, they don’t exist as far as I’m concerned.

[TwoUptons]

I don't test my lenses unless real world use suggests a problem.

There are no such suspicions for this lens.

Wide open:

I dunno, looks pretty soft on the top half of that second photo
Is that field tilt or decentering?

Seriously, it looks like a great lens...

-Eric

[jamesk8752]

Ricoh sent me an offer for $200 off list price for the new 16-50 in today's mail. I jumped right on it and hope to receive my lens soon.

I had given up on my old (original) 16-50 because of marginal IQ at the wide end and erratic SDM performance, switching to the Tamron 17-50 many years ago. Optical performance was indifferent but at least it was reliable. Now I'm looking forward to this new Pentax 16-50 - it sounds like it's a great lens and will resolve all my issues!

Regards, Jim

[STARHUNTER94]

And how did you score such a deal?

[gatorguy]

And how did you score such a deal?

I was going to ask the same.

[Smolk]

I'm telling myself I have to wait for the silver version... this way I can also wait for rumours about a K-1 III, the DFA 21mm Ltd, and keep sitting on the fence about the Ricoh GRIIIx. Such fun!

[mstahulak]

Ricoh sent me an offer for $200 off list price for the new 16-50 in today's mail. I jumped right on it and hope to receive my lens soon.

I had given up on my old (original) 16-50 because of marginal IQ at the wide end and erratic SDM performance, switching to the Tamron 17-50 many years ago. Optical performance was indifferent but at least it was reliable. Now I'm looking forward to this new Pentax 16-50 - it sounds like it's a great lens and will resolve all my issues!

Regards, Jim

I’ve had 5 (!) copies of the old version: first one was great, gave it to a friend and bought a replacement. The SDM failed on that one in less than 3 months, sent it for service. Got an obviously refurbished copy (that was no good) in return, and after another unacceptable refurbished replacement and some angry email exchanges ended up with a brand new replacement (since the original was gone). Eventually, after several years, SDM failed again, and I had it repaired. At that point, I sold it. The IQ was never great, AF was slow and unreliable on my cameras of the time, and the 16-85mm was better than any of the 16-50s I had owned. I bought the K-10D because that lens was on the roadmap, and it was always a disappointment. Until I got rid of it.

I also got a $200 off offer from Ricoh for the new version, about a month ago (because I had reviewed the K-3III on their US site), and bought it right away. I’ll eventually post some photos, but it is pretty sharp at all apertures and focal lengths, AF is really fast (faster than the 55-300 PLM?), and I am so far happy with the purchase. The only downsides are size and weight; together with the K-3III, it makes for a large and heavy standard setup, and I do almost all of my shooting outdoors hiking.

Mike