[k100d]

it's weird how the DA* 16-50 is all messed up, but there haven't been any significant complaints about the others

[kent vinyard]

How about this? My second DA* 16-50 does great and I use it nearly every day. My brand new DA* 300 f4.0 backfocuses very bad. I'm sending it to Pentax next week for checking out as well as my K10. I don't think it is the K10 as it focuses fine with all of my other lenses. Guess I'm lucky as I haven't heard of problems with any of the other DA* 300 having this problem.

[Serpiente]

Maybe there comes new firmware for the K10d to fix.. If the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 gives better shots its useless to buy the Pentax thats twice as expensive

[Serpiente]

Well, look for scenes that are important to the type of photography you do. If there are bags and bacpacks on display, they usually have fine texture that you can test the sharpness on, there are batteries or memory cards hanging on the wall with all those various coloured multiple size texts and letters which may just be good enough target to test lens sharpnesse of softness from center to corner. There are darker and lighter coloured bags that you can check for focussing speed and sensitivity. There are usually some bright lights and darker corners to fool the metering, lots of reflections to throw autofocus off etc. There are straight lines (shelves, display cases, ceiling junction stripes) to test the distortion. Be creative.

Well this is useful

I want to buy a zoom for low-light/available light soon. Its for general purpose, landscape, portraits, parties. I am going to buy a macro after this one so thats no argument to buy a certain lens. These are my options.

Pentax SMC DA 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL IF SDM
Sigma AF 18-50/2.8 EX DC Macro
Sigma AF 24-70/2.8 EX DG MACRO
Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 EX DG COMPACT
Tamron AF 17-50/2.8 XR Di II LD Asph
Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Asf. IF

[little laker]

I've never tried a Sigma 18 - 50, but it was one of the lenses I thought might be a suitable replacement

Although I'm really impressed with the images taken with the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD, so it would be my #1 choice.
Plus Pentax already has a working agreement with Tamron, making it easier

I believe that there's a considerable price difference (I understand that the Tamron is less expensive) so I imagine they'd have to either refund some $, or possibly throw in the new 17-70 f4 to make up the difference

[TiminyCricket]

Hi everyone!

I've been perusing through this forum for almost a year now, but this is the first time that I've actually posted a message.

Today, I received a DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 and was wondering if a few of you could have a look at some test pictures which I took with it earlier today and chime-in as to whether or not it looks to be a good copy, or not. I've read through the various postings regarding the image issues associated with this lens, but am still unsure as to if my copy is a good one, or if it has issues that I myself do not really know to look for.

I plan to conduct the infamous "newspaper test" whenever I get a chance, but for now here are a few of the pictures that I took with it just a bit ago. They were taken as regular JPEG's (I was so excited to try it out that I forgot to set the camera to RAW) and except for one image (the one of the back side of the house and the porch) none of the images have been modified in any way except for the resizing done automatically while uploading them to Photobucket.

So, if you all could, please have a look at the pictures and share your opinions with me as to the the apparent quality of the lens that I received. And if any of you have any other suggestions of how I might better test the lens output quality please share the info with me. Thanks everyone!

Here are the pics...

Back Deck. 16mm, F/2.8, 1/1000 sec, ISO 100. Brightened in Photoshop as the picture was somewhat dark.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5153-B.jpg

Landscaping. 16mm, F/2.8, 1/180 sec, ISO 100. Image was resized, but otherwise not modified.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5168.jpg

Small shrub surrounded by rocks. 50mm, F/16, 1/20 sec, ISO 800. Image was resized, but otherwise not modified.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5166.jpg

Ladybug sitting on a leaf. 50mm, F/2.8, 1/90 sec, ISO 100. The ladybug was the focal-point. Image was resized, but otherwise not modified.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5178.jpg

Flower Macro. 50mm, F/2.8, 1/60 sec, ISO 100. Image was resized, but otherwise not modified.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5175.jpg

My cat Blackjack guarding the lens box. 45mm, F/8, 1/60 sec, ISO 400. Image was resized, but otherwise not modified.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5106.jpg

Wicker chair out on the deck. 16mm, F/2.8, 1/125 sec, ISO 100. I believe the front center of the chair was the focal point. Image was resized, but otherwise not modified.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s221/sting16050/Pentax%20DA%2016-50mm/_IGP5164.jpg

[jsherman999]

To me, that looks like an excellent copy.

[sewebster]

Hehe, yeah, I don't know anything about that lens, but those pics make me want one!

[PentaxPoke]

WHY THE HECK CAN'T I GET A COPY LIKE THAT! Oh, and the fact that you were able to get such a perfectly exposed picture of a black cat, makes you "the man" for today.

[wiyum]

I plan to conduct the infamous "newspaper test" whenever I get a chance, but for now here are a few of the pictures that I took with it just a bit ago. They were taken as regular JPEG's (I was so excited to try it out that I forgot to set the camera to RAW) and except for one image (the one of the back side of the house and the porch) none of the images have been modified in any way except for the resizing done automatically while uploading them to Photobucket.

So, if you all could, please have a look at the pictures and share your opinions with me as to the the apparent quality of the lens that I received. And if any of you have any other suggestions of how I might better test the lens output quality please share the info with me. Thanks everyone!

I'd still do a newspaper/brick wall/fine detail in any sort of single plane that fills the frame test at various focal lengths and apertures and distances, but the early report is that you've got what looks to be a fine lens.

Will

[benjikan]

I love using the 16-50 especially in very tight shooting conditions. Like this...

Got me out of a very tight spot.

Ben....

[TiminyCricket]

I'd still do a newspaper/brick wall/fine detail in any sort of single plane that fills the frame test at various focal lengths and apertures and distances, but the early report is that you've got what looks to be a fine lens.

Will

Hi everyone! Thank you for the feedback thus far! I had been concerned, as I had actually purchased my copy of this lens "USED" (grade 9+) from B&H photo for $579 ($100 less than what they were asking for it new). As far as I can tell though the lens looked as close to brand-new as could be.

My thought was that, on one hand, someone else had previously owned the lens and had been unhappy with it, subsequently causing them return it... but on the other hand I figured that B&H would have further scrutinized the lens upon receiving it back and maybe would have any defects fixed before reselling it again. So far I am quite happy with the "real-world" pictures which I took, but will still be looking for a nice brick building with lots of detail to take some pictures of, so that I can check overall edge to edge consistency. I now think that I'm going to avoid the newspaper test, as there are just too many variables which need to be perfect in order for that test to provide accurate results.

Here is what I most noticed about this lens upon first receiving it:

* It is quite heavy... it feels about as heavy as my larger Sigma 70-300 DG APO lens.
* The supersonic focusing motor (although not absolutely quiet, as you can still hear it working a little) seems to focus rather quickly, effortlessly, and accurately... and without all of the awful focusing noises of the traditional in-camera focusing mechanisms!
* The build seems quite good and solid, but then again I really had no complaints about the builds of either of my Sigma zoom lenses. Neither of them exactly felt "flimsy" to me, either.
* The large focus ring and small zoom ring will take some getting used to for me initially. But luckily, both rings are smooth in their operations (even at the 28mm crosspoint when turning the zoom ring I feel little to no binding of the ring)

So anyways, my two cents so far on this lens. Looks like it's gonna' be a keeper!

[TiminyCricket]

I'd still do a newspaper/brick wall/fine detail in any sort of single plane that fills the frame test at various focal lengths and apertures and distances, but the early report is that you've got what looks to be a fine lens.

Will

Tonight I downloaded a focus test chart from here, set it all up, and took a few pictures using the article author's recommended camera settings and set-up instructions. The test was conducted using my K10D (v1.3 firmware) and my new DA* 16-50mm. The test was conducted wide-open, at f/2.8 as recommended within the article.

Here was the result:



According to the instructions given as to how to interpret the results (and according to my eyes, which themselves may or may not be giving accurate results) the lens looks to be fairly accurate in its focus until you get past the upper and lower 8mm marks. Then it starts to show a tendency towards slight back focus. What do you more experienced guys think based on the provided image? Would this outcome be considered good, acceptable, or poor?

Thanks
Tim

[PentaxPoke]

Who cares about the shot of the focus chart. I'm still impressed with the shot of Blackjack!

Oh and one more thing...I wish the thread would open at the bottom, because I really hate scrolling through this particular thread. Thanks Ben!!

[TiminyCricket]

Oh and one more thing...I wish the thread would open at the bottom, because I really hate scrolling through this particular thread. Thanks Ben!!

I'm with 'ya on that! I must remember while I'm at work and browsing through this thread that I need to scroll to the bottom as fast as is possible... lest my co-workers might end up a bit disturbed by what they see!

As for the comments on the picture of Blackjack... THANK YOU! He's the more laid-back of my two cats and seemed happy to pose for the picture!