[licht96]

@Bigmaccam: on the new K3 III.
I also checked the old K3 II. There is no problem (but the field of AF points is not so big, as you know).

I think, I will open a topic here in the forum, that someone can check all the AF points, too.
May be, I've a bad copy (but it's already the second one)

[BigMackCam]

@Bigmaccam: on the new K3 III.
I also checked the old K3 II. There is no problem (but the field of AF points is not so big, as you know).

I think, I will open a topic here in the forum, that someone can check all the AF points, too.
May be, I've a bad copy (but it's already the second one)

OK... So:

- Subject with big stomach () centered in viewfinder
- Focusing through the viewfinder (i.e. using PDAF)
- Outer focus point selected, positioned on the face
- Focus using AF, and take the shot

In this instance, are you saying the face is not in focus, or the stomach? If the face is in focus - i.e. the point on which the outer focus point was centered - then it's working correctly. The stomach may be out of focus, potentially due to depth of field (solution: subject needs to lose some weight ) or field curvature (solution: learn to work with it ).

If the face isn't in focus using this example, try the same thing in Live View. Does this work? Assuming it does, then PDAF is the culprit. It could be that your camera needs factory adjustment of the focus point offsets.

[licht96]

@Bigmaccom: I think I will make a separate thread for this, since it´s not really fitting anymore to the 16-50 PLM

[Smolk]

To those who have the 16-50mm PLM (which I can't hire or try where I live), how does it relate to the FA 31mm Ltd and the DA 20-40mm Ltd at 31mm?
My guess is that the new zoom might well be better - the latter lenses are 20 years and 8 years old designs, which in today's world is quite the difference, but in terms of bokeh / sharpness I'd still be interested to hear real life experiences (not theory please).

I can buy one of these but can't try them. If the 31mm would still be up to par, I might go for that, but I have a sneaky feeling the new zoom betters it at ASP-C.

---------- Post added 11-03-2021 at 04:25 PM ----------

I should add, I'm now doing with the K-3 III and the 15mm, 21mm, 43mm and the Tamron SP Di 2.8/90mm. Pretty versatile combo, but no normal lens.

[BigMackCam]

To those who have the 16-50mm PLM (which I can't hire or try where I live), how does it relate to the FA 31mm Ltd and the DA 20-40mm Ltd at 31mm?
My guess is that the new zoom might well be better - the latter lenses are 20 years and 8 years old designs, which in today's world is quite the difference, but in terms of bokeh / sharpness I'd still be interested to hear real life experiences (not theory please).

I can buy one of these but can't try them. If the 31mm would still be up to par, I might go for that, but I have a sneaky feeling the new zoom betters it at ASP-C.

---------- Post added 11-03-2021 at 04:25 PM ----------

I should add, I'm now doing with the K-3 III and the 15mm, 21mm, 43mm and the Tamron SP Di 2.8/90mm. Pretty versatile combo, but no normal lens.

I can't give any feedback on the 16-50 PLM, and I realise that's what you're really asking about. However, regarding a "normal" lens, you might also consider the DA35/2.8 Macro Limited. Slightly narrower field of view to the FA31, and slower, of course - but since you're considering the 16-50, it sounds as if f/2.8 is enough for you. The DA35 is very sharp at all apertures, renders nicely, offers true macro capability, is very compact and light-weight, and relatively inexpensive given the other options you're looking at. It's a nice partner to your existing DA Limited lenses, too. Othewise, the FA35/2 is a great option too... either the older SMC or newer HD version. It's very sharp, with nice rendering when stopped down just a wee bit, compact, and comparatively inexpensive.

With that said, I'll step aside an let folks respond to your question

[Smolk]

you might also consider the DA35/2.8 Macro Limited

Thanks for the suggestion. However, between the 21 and 43mm, 35mm is too close to the latter, 21 - 31 - 43 works better. I would consider 28mm as well but of late I'm having trouble with MF.
I have asked Ricoh EU whether I can order two lenses, pick one and send the other back.

One more consideration: the 31mm could be used on a FF body later, although I'm not sure I need that much more.

[willdmo]

Thanks for the suggestion. However, between the 21 and 43mm, 35mm is too close to the latter, 21 - 31 - 43 works better. I would consider 28mm as well but of late I'm having trouble with MF.
I have asked Ricoh EU whether I can order two lenses, pick one and send the other back.

One more consideration: the 31mm could be used on a FF body later, although I'm not sure I need that much more.

The 31mm is a real keeper, analog and digital

[thibs]

The 31mm is a real keeper, analog and digital

31mm and 43mm are still on my radar....
Maybe one day.

[Mooncatt]

My birthday is in April, so I wanted to give my wife a heads up. I told her I'd keep my wish list simple. One item, which is likely to be in stock, and I linked her to B&H Photo's page for this lens. She replied that she would print off a photo of the lens.

Oof. XD

[thibs]

Good luck