"Best in Class" for 16-50mm?

BB_Zone28 · 01-22-2010, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Oggy

Sorry, but you should know by now that if you have an SDM lens, it will kill you - all mine have killed me.

If you know anyone with an SDM len it will kill you and your family. All my friends are dead because of mine.

If anyone on the same continent as you has an SDM well---

Guess you got one that didn't last. Hopefully you fixed it under warranty.

Fortunately, I have a DA 17-70 f/4 with SDM that runs smooth and quiet on my K20D. It is a very versatile lens. I've shot with it in rain (everything covered with an umbrella, but a light mist was all over the lens) and very harsh cold snowy weather as well as when it's warm and sunny. I've had no problems with its SDM...I like it!

Last edited by BB_Zone28; 01-22-2010 at 07:34 PM. Reason: update

PentaxPoke · 01-22-2010, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by BB_Zone28

Guess you got one that didn't last. Hopefully you fixed it under warranty.

Fortunately, I have a DA 17-70 f/4 with SDM that runs smooth and quiet on my K20D. It is a very versatile lens. I've shot with it in rain (everything covered with an umbrella, but a light mist was all over the lens) and very harsh cold snowy weather as well as when it's warm and sunny. I've had no problems with its SDM...I like it!

BB,
He was being sarcastic. Apparently Oggy is an SDM apologist and thinks that those of us that have had failures, are in a conspiracy to bring down Pentax. By his logic, there is no SDM problem, because there are people with working SDM lenses.

whatever7 · 01-24-2010, 04:24 PM

I would say the best in the class is the Nikon 17-55 AFS.

potatolicious · 01-25-2010, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

BB,
He was being sarcastic. Apparently Oggy is an SDM apologist and thinks that those of us that have had failures, are in a conspiracy to bring down Pentax. By his logic, there is no SDM problem, because there are people with working SDM lenses.

I was an unbeliever in SDM problems. But just in the last month or so my roommate's 16-50 has literally fallen apart (in warranty thankfully), where the rear element fell *into* the lens body and the whole thing jammed up.

And then my 50-135 started making terrible squeaking sounds.

All in all very disappointed in SDM quality.

cwood · 01-25-2010, 12:55 AM

What an absolute damn shame there has to be so much cynicism regarding such an excellent lens. Optically this lens is easily better than my 24-105L Canon lens which really highlights the long term strength of Pentax which has been optics.

Personally I have had this lens for 2 years now with no problems and it is one of the reasons I have not switched fully to Canon. In fact if I could mount this plus my 50-135 and my 43Ltd there would be no reason for me to stay with Pentax.

So I'm glad this lens is getting good reviews. Now if the bad press can just be resolved all will be good.

PentaxPoke · 01-25-2010, 01:07 AM

kunik,

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I disagree that the 16-50 is as optically "great" as some people say it is. (I give you no argument at all that Pentax strength is optics, and most are excellent. That is what pains me so much about recent events, because Pentax was always about quality, first-rate lenses, and cost-effective bodies). The 16-50's strength is excellent center sharpness. But where it is really poor compared to the competition, is in edge sharpness and CA. Wide open, photozone rates it on the verge of "poor" in edge sharpness. I owned the Tamron 17-50 and the 16-50 at the same time, and there was no comparison. The Tamron was superior.

I have a hard time believing the 16-50 is better optically than the 24-105L. (Now if we were talking about the 50-135 optics then I would agree with you.

)

16-50:
Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report

24-105L:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Review / Lab Test Report

I know you can't compare peak sharpness because the camera bodies are different. But you can see the edge vs. center sharpness, and at 50mm the 16-50 has problems until f/5.6. That is consistent with what I found as well when comparing the 16-50 and 17-50 on my k20d.

**Rondec** · 01-25-2010, 05:15 AM

I don't think photozone got a great copy of the 16-50 for their testing purposes. I agree that the borders are pretty weak between 16 and 18mm, although they tighten up quite a bit by f4. The rest of the focal range is excellent, however and sharp edge to edge. It is unfortunate that there is such disparity in copies of this lens, with many people having to send back several copies before they get a good one, but when you get one, it is awfully sharp.

lithos · 01-25-2010, 07:32 AM

Well, it's not as if it's an actual Pentax lens...

cwood · 01-25-2010, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

kunik,

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I disagree that the 16-50 is as optically "great" as some people say it is. (I give you no argument at all that Pentax strength is optics, and most are excellent. That is what pains me so much about recent events, because Pentax was always about quality, first-rate lenses, and cost-effective bodies). The 16-50's strength is excellent center sharpness. But where it is really poor compared to the competition, is in edge sharpness and CA. Wide open, photozone rates it on the verge of "poor" in edge sharpness. I owned the Tamron 17-50 and the 16-50 at the same time, and there was no comparison. The Tamron was superior.

I have a hard time believing the 16-50 is better optically than the 24-105L. (Now if we were talking about the 50-135 optics then I would agree with you.

)

16-50:
Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report

24-105L:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Review / Lab Test Report

I know you can't compare peak sharpness because the camera bodies are different. But you can see the edge vs. center sharpness, and at 50mm the 16-50 has problems until f/5.6. That is consistent with what I found as well when comparing the 16-50 and 17-50 on my k20d.

I'll try to find the time to dig out some photos later to show you - but the 24-105 has some of the worst barrel distortion I have ever seen... at least my copy of it but I don't know if that is the sort of thing that varies between copies. I have used that lens to shoot several beach weddings and I always need to straighten the horizon because there is no way the earth curves THAT much.

Since I'm not a landscape shooter I have never noticed the corners of my lenses as being either sharp or not sharp. Usually the corners of my shots are filled with bokeh (sports or portraits).

PentaxPoke · 01-25-2010, 10:40 AM

That is odd kunik. The photozone tests show that the distortion on the 16-50 is worse. I haven't used a 24-105 so I have never seen a side-by-side. The thing I didn't like about the 16-50 distortion, is that it is "mustache" type at the wide end. It is quite difficult to fully correct IMO.

cwood · 01-25-2010, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

That is odd kunik. The photozone tests show that the distortion on the 16-50 is worse. I haven't used a 24-105 so I have never seen a side-by-side. The thing I didn't like about the 16-50 distortion, is that it is "mustache" type at the wide end. It is quite difficult to fully correct IMO.

But it looks like they were testing this FF lens on a crop sensor (1.6x) which would have minimized the effect - No?

heliphoto · 01-25-2010, 04:33 PM

It's funny, but I remember reading lots of complaints that the big photo mags only give good reviews to those companies which advertise in them (and since Pentax didn't, this was used by apologists to explain why Canon and Nikon got all the press)... can anyone tell me whether Pentax is now advertising (heavily) in Pop Photo? It might explain the rating...

Originally posted by kunik

What an absolute damn shame there has to be so much cynicism regarding such an excellent lens. Optically this lens is easily better than my 24-105L Canon lens which really highlights the long term strength of Pentax which has been optics.

Personally I have had this lens for 2 years now with no problems and it is one of the reasons I have not switched fully to Canon. In fact if I could mount this plus my 50-135 and my 43Ltd there would be no reason for me to stay with Pentax.

So I'm glad this lens is getting good reviews. Now if the bad press can just be resolved all will be good.

I don't discount your experience kunik, but your comment vs. my experience might point to sample variation amongst lenses. My DA* 16-50 seemed to be a "good copy", at least based on samples I took and posted back when I got it (including 100% samples etc...), but subjectively, my 24-105L blows it away in the sharpness dept. on my 5DII Perhaps not center sharpness at f/4 (I never ran any side by side tests), but across the frame, I notice much better sharpness. It may be that I had an average copy of the DA* and an excellent copy of the L, or maybe I'm just seeing differences in the sensor/AA filter.

As to distortion, I hadn't really noticed, so I just went back through my shots with this lens and because of a combination of my shooting style and the settings I'm usually shooting in (outdoors, or indoors with shallow dof) there are only a few shots where I can see the distortion, and even then it doesn't bother me (I have a strange tolerance for distortion

). I can see how if you're often shooting in man made settings, the distortion might be much more of an issue (however I was able to fix it to a great extent with the distortion correction in DPP with the one shot I tried).

benjikan · 01-29-2010, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Andrew Faires

While I can appreciate that a lot of users here and at the other forum have had their problems with this lens, I've personally had nothing but good experiences with it. It's taken over 2 years of abuse and continues to perform wonderfully. My only gripes are zoom-creep and that d@mn polarizer access thing on the lens-hood (which is currently residing somewhere in or around Algonquin PP - many miles away from the rest of the lens/hood).

I had some problems when Pentax sent me their first version. They re-sent me another one a few months later and it is the lens I use most of the time for my shoots. It is a real workhorse and sharp as a Tack.

cwood · 01-29-2010, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I had some problems when Pentax sent me their first version. They re-sent me another one a few months later and it is the lens I use most of the time for my shoots. It is a real workhorse and sharp as a Tack.

Except for the fact that I never had a bad copy to begin with this is exactly how I feel about it. I use it for everything from weddings to sports to studio and I am always pleased with the results and I am always confident in my shots when using this lens.

pingflood · 01-29-2010, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

That is odd kunik. The photozone tests show that the distortion on the 16-50 is worse. I haven't used a 24-105 so I have never seen a side-by-side. The thing I didn't like about the 16-50 distortion, is that it is "mustache" type at the wide end. It is quite difficult to fully correct IMO.

The 24-105 on full frame does have wicked distortion at 24mm, though of the type that's pretty easy to fix. It's a great walk-around / general purpose lens, but not without its shortcomings. Mine usually sits on my 1DsII when I travel since it's so versatile, and I've been very happy with it overall though...

01-25-2010, 01:07 AM	#21
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	kunik, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I disagree that the 16-50 is as optically "great" as some people say it is. (I give you no argument at all that Pentax strength is optics, and most are excellent. That is what pains me so much about recent events, because Pentax was always about quality, first-rate lenses, and cost-effective bodies). The 16-50's strength is excellent center sharpness. But where it is really poor compared to the competition, is in edge sharpness and CA. Wide open, photozone rates it on the verge of "poor" in edge sharpness. I owned the Tamron 17-50 and the 16-50 at the same time, and there was no comparison. The Tamron was superior. I have a hard time believing the 16-50 is better optically than the 24-105L. (Now if we were talking about the 50-135 optics then I would agree with you. ) 16-50: Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report 24-105L: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Review / Lab Test Report I know you can't compare peak sharpness because the camera bodies are different. But you can see the edge vs. center sharpness, and at 50mm the 16-50 has problems until f/5.6. That is consistent with what I found as well when comparing the 16-50 and 17-50 on my k20d. Last edited by PentaxPoke; 01-25-2010 at 01:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
K20d-Frame Count on panals..works w/"M" & "P" mode only?	arbib	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	08-28-2009 05:47 PM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
What the SDHC "Class #" means... be aware!	Marc Langille	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	26	02-16-2008 04:39 AM
Anyone bring "E2" fluid or the "Digital Survival Kit" on a plane?	m8o	Photographic Technique	2	07-31-2007 06:20 PM

01-22-2010, 07:17 PM	#16
BB_Zone28 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Broomfield, Colorado Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 152	Originally posted by Oggy Sorry, but you should know by now that if you have an SDM lens, it will kill you - all mine have killed me. If you know anyone with an SDM len it will kill you and your family. All my friends are dead because of mine. If anyone on the same continent as you has an SDM well--- Guess you got one that didn't last. Hopefully you fixed it under warranty. Fortunately, I have a DA 17-70 f/4 with SDM that runs smooth and quiet on my K20D. It is a very versatile lens. I've shot with it in rain (everything covered with an umbrella, but a light mist was all over the lens) and very harsh cold snowy weather as well as when it's warm and sunny. I've had no problems with its SDM...I like it! Last edited by BB_Zone28; 01-22-2010 at 07:34 PM. Reason: update

01-22-2010, 07:39 PM	#17
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by BB_Zone28 Guess you got one that didn't last. Hopefully you fixed it under warranty. Fortunately, I have a DA 17-70 f/4 with SDM that runs smooth and quiet on my K20D. It is a very versatile lens. I've shot with it in rain (everything covered with an umbrella, but a light mist was all over the lens) and very harsh cold snowy weather as well as when it's warm and sunny. I've had no problems with its SDM...I like it! BB, He was being sarcastic. Apparently Oggy is an SDM apologist and thinks that those of us that have had failures, are in a conspiracy to bring down Pentax. By his logic, there is no SDM problem, because there are people with working SDM lenses.

01-24-2010, 04:24 PM	#18
whatever7 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 278	I would say the best in the class is the Nikon 17-55 AFS.

01-25-2010, 12:35 AM	#19
potatolicious Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Seattle Posts: 44	Originally posted by PentaxPoke BB, He was being sarcastic. Apparently Oggy is an SDM apologist and thinks that those of us that have had failures, are in a conspiracy to bring down Pentax. By his logic, there is no SDM problem, because there are people with working SDM lenses. I was an unbeliever in SDM problems. But just in the last month or so my roommate's 16-50 has literally fallen apart (in warranty thankfully), where the rear element fell into the lens body and the whole thing jammed up. And then my 50-135 started making terrible squeaking sounds. All in all very disappointed in SDM quality.

01-25-2010, 12:55 AM	#20
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	What an absolute damn shame there has to be so much cynicism regarding such an excellent lens. Optically this lens is easily better than my 24-105L Canon lens which really highlights the long term strength of Pentax which has been optics. Personally I have had this lens for 2 years now with no problems and it is one of the reasons I have not switched fully to Canon. In fact if I could mount this plus my 50-135 and my 43Ltd there would be no reason for me to stay with Pentax. So I'm glad this lens is getting good reviews. Now if the bad press can just be resolved all will be good.

01-25-2010, 05:15 AM	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I don't think photozone got a great copy of the 16-50 for their testing purposes. I agree that the borders are pretty weak between 16 and 18mm, although they tighten up quite a bit by f4. The rest of the focal range is excellent, however and sharp edge to edge. It is unfortunate that there is such disparity in copies of this lens, with many people having to send back several copies before they get a good one, but when you get one, it is awfully sharp.

01-25-2010, 07:32 AM	#23
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Well, it's not as if it's an actual Pentax lens...

01-25-2010, 10:32 AM	#24
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by PentaxPoke kunik, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I disagree that the 16-50 is as optically "great" as some people say it is. (I give you no argument at all that Pentax strength is optics, and most are excellent. That is what pains me so much about recent events, because Pentax was always about quality, first-rate lenses, and cost-effective bodies). The 16-50's strength is excellent center sharpness. But where it is really poor compared to the competition, is in edge sharpness and CA. Wide open, photozone rates it on the verge of "poor" in edge sharpness. I owned the Tamron 17-50 and the 16-50 at the same time, and there was no comparison. The Tamron was superior. I have a hard time believing the 16-50 is better optically than the 24-105L. (Now if we were talking about the 50-135 optics then I would agree with you. ) 16-50: Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report 24-105L: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Review / Lab Test Report I know you can't compare peak sharpness because the camera bodies are different. But you can see the edge vs. center sharpness, and at 50mm the 16-50 has problems until f/5.6. That is consistent with what I found as well when comparing the 16-50 and 17-50 on my k20d. I'll try to find the time to dig out some photos later to show you - but the 24-105 has some of the worst barrel distortion I have ever seen... at least my copy of it but I don't know if that is the sort of thing that varies between copies. I have used that lens to shoot several beach weddings and I always need to straighten the horizon because there is no way the earth curves THAT much. Since I'm not a landscape shooter I have never noticed the corners of my lenses as being either sharp or not sharp. Usually the corners of my shots are filled with bokeh (sports or portraits).

01-25-2010, 10:40 AM	#25
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	That is odd kunik. The photozone tests show that the distortion on the 16-50 is worse. I haven't used a 24-105 so I have never seen a side-by-side. The thing I didn't like about the 16-50 distortion, is that it is "mustache" type at the wide end. It is quite difficult to fully correct IMO.

01-25-2010, 02:17 PM	#26
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by PentaxPoke That is odd kunik. The photozone tests show that the distortion on the 16-50 is worse. I haven't used a 24-105 so I have never seen a side-by-side. The thing I didn't like about the 16-50 distortion, is that it is "mustache" type at the wide end. It is quite difficult to fully correct IMO. But it looks like they were testing this FF lens on a crop sensor (1.6x) which would have minimized the effect - No?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2010, 04:33 PM	#27
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	It's funny, but I remember reading lots of complaints that the big photo mags only give good reviews to those companies which advertise in them (and since Pentax didn't, this was used by apologists to explain why Canon and Nikon got all the press)... can anyone tell me whether Pentax is now advertising (heavily) in Pop Photo? It might explain the rating... Originally posted by kunik What an absolute damn shame there has to be so much cynicism regarding such an excellent lens. Optically this lens is easily better than my 24-105L Canon lens which really highlights the long term strength of Pentax which has been optics. Personally I have had this lens for 2 years now with no problems and it is one of the reasons I have not switched fully to Canon. In fact if I could mount this plus my 50-135 and my 43Ltd there would be no reason for me to stay with Pentax. So I'm glad this lens is getting good reviews. Now if the bad press can just be resolved all will be good. I don't discount your experience kunik, but your comment vs. my experience might point to sample variation amongst lenses. My DA* 16-50 seemed to be a "good copy", at least based on samples I took and posted back when I got it (including 100% samples etc...), but subjectively, my 24-105L blows it away in the sharpness dept. on my 5DII Perhaps not center sharpness at f/4 (I never ran any side by side tests), but across the frame, I notice much better sharpness. It may be that I had an average copy of the DA* and an excellent copy of the L, or maybe I'm just seeing differences in the sensor/AA filter. As to distortion, I hadn't really noticed, so I just went back through my shots with this lens and because of a combination of my shooting style and the settings I'm usually shooting in (outdoors, or indoors with shallow dof) there are only a few shots where I can see the distortion, and even then it doesn't bother me (I have a strange tolerance for distortion ). I can see how if you're often shooting in man made settings, the distortion might be much more of an issue (however I was able to fix it to a great extent with the distortion correction in DPP with the one shot I tried).

01-29-2010, 03:10 AM	#28
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by Andrew Faires While I can appreciate that a lot of users here and at the other forum have had their problems with this lens, I've personally had nothing but good experiences with it. It's taken over 2 years of abuse and continues to perform wonderfully. My only gripes are zoom-creep and that d@mn polarizer access thing on the lens-hood (which is currently residing somewhere in or around Algonquin PP - many miles away from the rest of the lens/hood). I had some problems when Pentax sent me their first version. They re-sent me another one a few months later and it is the lens I use most of the time for my shoots. It is a real workhorse and sharp as a Tack.

01-29-2010, 08:20 AM	#29
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by benjikan I had some problems when Pentax sent me their first version. They re-sent me another one a few months later and it is the lens I use most of the time for my shoots. It is a real workhorse and sharp as a Tack. Except for the fact that I never had a bad copy to begin with this is exactly how I feel about it. I use it for everything from weddings to sports to studio and I am always pleased with the results and I am always confident in my shots when using this lens.

01-29-2010, 01:55 PM	#30
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by PentaxPoke That is odd kunik. The photozone tests show that the distortion on the 16-50 is worse. I haven't used a 24-105 so I have never seen a side-by-side. The thing I didn't like about the 16-50 distortion, is that it is "mustache" type at the wide end. It is quite difficult to fully correct IMO. The 24-105 on full frame does have wicked distortion at 24mm, though of the type that's pretty easy to fix. It's a great walk-around / general purpose lens, but not without its shortcomings. Mine usually sits on my 1DsII when I travel since it's so versatile, and I've been very happy with it overall though...