[house]

Such a three point scale is a bit limited for expressing the quality of a range of lenses. Say the difference between a 7 and an 8 it doesn't mean much considering the numbers of reviews and the subjective nature of the score. You can still get a hunch from reading it but never more.

[pres589]

Out of all of the issues we might be having this was not one I thought would get much discussion today.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes I was referring to the user reviews. The average score must be around 8 or even higher. It's also clear that discussing any potential downsides gets pretty heavily attacked including admins closing threads.

I must be atypical. I have given one 5 score, two 6 score and one 7 score in the lens review section. None were cheap and two were star lenses.

[Sandy Hancock]

Out of all of the issues we might be having this was not one I thought would get much discussion today.

If I didn't know better, I would assume you must be new here

[Ishpuini]

Well, regardless of the ongoing discussion, I've given the new PLM DA*16-50/2.8 a score of 9 based on a few days with mine. It's a great lens that ticks most boxes and in some respects exceeds my expectations, but perfection doesn't exist...

[Jonathan Mac]

I'd say a score of five means that it works and that stopped down to f/8 with good light it will produce results that are sufficient for social media sharing at low resolution but don't excel in colour, contrast, aberrations or 3D feeling.

The DA* 16-50 PLM would need to score at least a 9 to be worth the asking price.

[JPT]

I just read all the reviews. Then I know what the owners are trying to say about the lens. Numbers are no less subjective than the written opinions, but much less informative.

Anyway, it's great that this lens is arriving early for some. It doesn't even have a firm release date in Japan yet.

Edit - It seems to have an availability date of August 27 in Japan now.

[jersey]

Any of owners of new 16-50 has perhaps comparison with 20-40 Ltd?

I am now sitting at home looking at K3/3 with Sigma and wishes that I had some WR lens with me. It is raining like crazy and Krakow old town without people and in rain would be a great subject.

[One3rdEV]

Jersey- Agreed access to Krakow would be awesome... and in the rain no less! Any chance you could rig up a plastic bag drape using clips under neath to help keep it in place... or just go the traditional way with an umbrella (easier said than done of course). Then again, if you always have access to Krakow- then I guess waiting until you have a Pentax sealed lens is reasonable.

As great as my Sigma lens actually performs... it seems that my sealed Pentax lens gets used the most. Although that is most often because of its smaller physical size. Still, I'm hoping that the performance of the DA* 16-50mm PLM will be noteworthy enough to compel me to someday replace the Sigma with it.

[Ishpuini]

Any of owners of new 16-50 has perhaps comparison with 20-40 Ltd?

Yes, I have both.

The DA*16-50/2.8 is a completely different beast to the DA20-40. They compare as any recent DA* lens should to a more or less equivalent DA limited IMHO, the DA limited prioritising portability and "character" over performance.

The fact that the DA20-40 was ever considered an alternative or even an improvement over the 16-50 is due to the old SDM's showing the age of its design on >20MP bodies, which the DA20-40 was designed for of course.

The new PLM is a different category altogether. IQ-wise it blows the DA20-40 out of the water, it's as simple as that IMHO. The DA20-40 still has its place as a flexible and compact light weight lens centred around 30mm. I can see myself still use mine from time to time when size or weight are of consideration. But the default workhorse standard zoom spot has been returned to a 16-50/2.8 lens now.

[jersey]

Thanks, I thought so that DA Ltds were made with lower resolutions in mind. It seems that 16-50 is a way for me. Especially as I use more often 17-21 on my Sigma then longer reaches.

[reh321]

Thanks, I thought so that DA Ltds were made with lower resolutions in mind. It seems that 16-50 is a way for me. Especially as I use more often 17-21 on my Sigma then longer reaches.

"DA Ltds were made with lower resolutions in mind" primarily in the sense that the eight-element Takumar 50mm f/1.4 was made with lower resolutions in mind.
They are not corner-to-corner sharp, but I have always been most interested in the center of the shot in any case.
I recently purchased the DA20-40mm Ltd; I cannot imagine paying over $1K for a lens nor in lugging a lens solely because it is "perfect".

added: When I shot slide film, I sat guests even with - or behind - the projector.
I still follow the same idea today; I am more interested in the whole photo than in zooming in to peek at pixels.

[reh321]

Thanks, I thought so that DA Ltds were made with lower resolutions in mind.

Now I understand why you said this.
The partial sentence

the old SDM's showing the age of its design on >20MP bodies, which the DA20-40 was designed for of course.

means that the old SDM DA* 16-50mm was not designed for >20MP bodies, but the newer DA 20-40mm Ltd and the PLM DA* 16-50mm both were.
However the the DA* 16-50mm and DA 20-40mm Ltd were designed for different users, and his experience is exactly what you would expect.
The DA* 16-50mm are "perfect" lenses, and have very few weaknesses; the DA 20-40mm Ltd is much smaller, and it has 'imperfections' as a result, as you would expect.
The DA 20-40mm Ltd lens was used by some users, despite those weaknesses, because the "SDM" motor has shown itself to be one big weakness.

added: @Ishpuini; please correct anything I said that was not a correct representation of what you wrote

[Ishpuini]

added: @Ishpuini; please correct anything I said that was not a correct representation of what you wrote

You are correct in clarifying what I wrote. Reading it again I realise I didn't write things as clear as I should have... I'm not a native speaker...

To be complete, SDM was not the reason I stopped using the SDM DA*16-50, IQ was. After conversion to screw drive it was noisier, but AF worked fine again.

[jersey]

Ah, ok. I thought that 20-40 was designed for lower resolution sensors and would lack details (be creamy/smudged) on new bodies. I do not search for perfect lens, I photograph mostly old buildings, streets and some architectural details or insides of museums with such lens.

Thanks for clarification, so 20-40 is back in game I will need to think hardly if I want to spend such amount of money for walkaround lens, or get cheaper Limited.

I am also not a native speaker so it was double combo