| Author: | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: Brno Posts: 295
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 12, 2023 | Not Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Weather sealing | | Cons: | Sudden Death Motor, weaker resolution wide open | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 5
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K20D, K5, K3
| |
I bought 2nd hand DA*16-50/2.8 in package with other things. I also have Sigma 17-50/2.8 for many years and Sig18-35/1.8 too.
My "new" DA*16-50 lens already had issues with Sudden Death Motor and although it looks like new and was only used with camera having less than 2500 clicks on shutter counter, the motor was already dead. DA*50-135/2.8 in same pack was struggling at the beginning, but after some time it was possible to wake the motor up and lens works. But 16-50/2.8 refused to do anything, so I had to convert the lens to screw drive only.
Camera driven AF +/- works, but it is only so-so usable with +10 AF fine tuning especially on wide end. F2.8 image is weaker than what Sigma 17-50/2.8 can do. It needs about F4 to show some good image. On longer end central part is usable with F2.8 and whole image needs at least F3.5 to be usable outside of center.
Screw drive AF is quite fast and even in live-view it is usable altough not a speed demon. But at least live-view is more accurate.
Back in K10D era when this lens was introduced, the price was already premium and +/- corresponded with what this lens can provide. But in 2009 the price was increased to unbelievable level and it remained quite overpriced in Ricoh hands until it was replaced by the new HD-DA*16-50/2.8 PLM AW (which is again overpriced, but at least has better image output).
In general, this lens only makes sense if it has some low price and you accept the fact, that motor will die over time. Even later lenses produced after 2012 are having many SDM issues, so the problem was not entirely fixed.
Usually you'll be able to find Sigma 17-50/2.8 offered with lower 2nd hand price, so unless you need weather sealing, get that Sigma instead. That one millimeter at wide end is noticeable, but nothing dramatical and AF on that Sigma is quiet and works well for many years. And if you need high resolution output, then just get Sigma 18-35/1.8. It has crisper image with F2 than this lens can do at F4  | | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: September, 2009 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 156
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 30, 2019 | Not Recommended | Price: $685.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Great range, lightweight | | Cons: | temperamental, slow focus, not sharp, prone to fail | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 5
Handling: 7
Value: 6
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-10, K-5IIs, K-3
| |
This review is a long time coming, and I have had this lens since it came out....well this model of lens, as I will explain. I have had issues with this lens, and my experience shows that maybe not everything was right before Pentax sold to Hoya oh way back when, and this lens suffered.
So I got this lens new to replace the kit lens on my K-10 back in the day. I knew I needed a lens that could let in more light, and I was in favor of using a Pentax-branded lens.
In the years with my K-10, things were just fine. Look this was not a speed demon to its contemporaries then, but I was happy with it, along with the weather sealing, which was very important.
When I slapped this on the K-5 as I upgraded my camera body, this lens began showing its limitations. It just doesn't get as sharp as you would expect it would. I found myself living with the results (or not, as I stowed it for bunches during my year to shoot manual focus). I kept coming back because it was convenient, it had the perfect range I wanted, and I relied on my 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 for detail work.
Then came the K-3. I never had the issue with the motor others had - my lens stopped focusing. That was until I got the K-3. Then I had problems again and again with it. It was weird. It just wouldn't work on the K-3, but it worked fine on my K-5 and K-01. I was on the phone with Support, and they were just like the lens must be dying, be happy you got enough time (to get out of warranty) with it.
Then, doing my own testing, in-between times I sent the lens and the K-3 in for review, I noticed something. Whenever it didn't focus, I would switch into LiveView, and sure enough it focused fine. Actually it focused great, and then my camera would connect to the lens in traditional mode. I don't know if this was a K-3 issue, or a 16-50 issue, but they replaced my lens for not cost, and the new version worked perfectly fine.
Still using today, still not wowed by the results, had an issue with the power connectors breaking, but fixed and working. Still no motor failure, knock on wood
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: August, 2014 Posts: 59
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 8, 2017 | Not Recommended | Price: $349.00
| Rating: 1 |
| Pros: | Good Bokah when needed, Quite AF, | | Cons: | Super bad AC, Super Soft on edges wide open, Vignetting, heavy | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 1
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 1
Handling: 3
Value: 1
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: Pentax K-3
| |
Kit lens is better, I would never recommend this lens.
I wanted a good zoom for my portraits, this was not it. Go ahead and skip it and get it out of your brain. I am looking at the 24-70 now for the replacement of this lens.
I did send it back after 2 sessions with this lens and I was super disapointed in the quality.
Contrast was OK but It could have been better.
If you are a pro or expect crisp images, this is not the lens you want.
For those hobbiest and don't care, it would make a good wide little zoom (NOT)
I do own a 18-275 which I love better, but I also own a 35m, 77m Limited and a 100 2.8. I have also owned a lot of other lenses as well and this has been the worst lens I have ever purchased.
I found super bad AC, distortion, vinetting around the edges. Auto focus was slow. Bad fringing.
It was heavy for the price as well as being super soft. I did find it to be the sweet spots as long as it was over F5 but even at that I need to shoot wide open most of the time for my kind of work... If your work is over F5 then use your judgement and don't say I warned you.
The only time I would recommend this lens is you were shooting over F5 for landscapes or if you needed it for other Geners of Photography. For portraits I would totally stay away from it. You get better quality from the regular Kit lens. Manual focus worked better than the autofocus. The autofocus was super disapointing to me.
Handling- Was very heavy, manual focus worked better than the autofocus. I was disapointed. Not only was it slow but it was soft. No crisp pretty sharp wide open. Again, for it to work right it had to be over F5.
Value- Even the value was horrible, I brought this used and was hoping for some awesome quaility but I was super disapointed in this lens and especially of how much it costed. I sent it back.
STAY AWAY! Keep with the Kit Lens! | | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2008 Location: La Spezia / Italy Posts: 107 | | Review Date: August 7, 2017 | Not Recommended | Price: $650.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Quality of lenses/handling | | Cons: | Autofocus/not solid construction | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 1
Handling: 10
Value: 5
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K20/K3
| |
I have a 16-50 for 9 years and I used it under all conditions.
I do not think it's a good lens, the criticality of autofocus, which is a feature of the lens, makes it unreliable. Mechanically it is very delicate, for example in my lens, a yoke appeared in the front barrel, even though it has never hit. Indeed, given the cost, one could expect more.
| | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2012 Posts: 118
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 8, 2016 | Not Recommended | Price: $750.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | Good image quality above f5.6, 20-50mm | | Cons: | Poor image quality below f8 on the wide end, fringing, SDM | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 1
Handling: 8
Value: 2
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-20D, K-30, K-01
| |
Poor IQ under f8 on the wide end, fringing, the SDM broke a month out of warranty. I get better wide angle images from my Q-7 and the kit lens! If you want a Pentax Zoom, get the 16-45 or 16-85, either one is cheaper and will work better, with no SDM issues.
The worst Pentax lens I have ever owned (and I've owned dozens of them over 50 years.)
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2014 Posts: 4
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 19, 2016 | Not Recommended | Price: $380.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Range, Wide angle low end (16mm) | | Cons: | sharpness (2 samples), construction (hard spot), | | Sharpness: 4
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 7
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K5
| |
I was really waiting for getting this lens, because of the aperture and range...and was really disappointed it, as I could not get a sharp shot even when stopped down, at F/5.6 or even F/8 (then such a lens become useless...).
On top of this, I could notice a hard spot at 24mm approx, while zooming...
I kept it 1 month and finally sold it.
I could try a second sample, and the story was basically the same.
I finally got a 20-40 Ltd that became one of my favorite lens,awesome construction, sharp, usable wide open, much lighter and smaller (due to not constant aperture), even if the wider range...
Each time I see awesome shots taken with the DA*16-50 I cannot figure out they could have been taken with it...Its probably due to bad luck but anyway, I do not recommend this lens
| | | | | Closed Account Registered: March, 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 415
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 15, 2015 | Not Recommended | Price: $930.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Fast, versatile when AF works. | | Cons: | SDM, internal hardware, poor quality control | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 4
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K5 and K5IIs
| |
Bought new in Dec. 2008. I just had my 4th incident (2 SDMs) with this lens causing me to spend more than the cost new if I decide to have this last one fixed (I did get 1 deal on 1 SDM incident). I can't deactivate the SDM because I have a mac (PKTether is for PC only) but I may have found some help. Otherwise I will use it in MF because its worth nothing now and I spent too much...! It is a dud and Pentax Canada has still not offered a decent deal such as total replacement...Granted, it still is a great all around lens with good glass but the hardware is poor given that there are 30+ SDM incidents listed out of the 188 lenses in the lens data base - not counting those that people are not willing to declare for resale purposes...?
That will make 3 SDM incidents counting my 50-135mm - which I hardly used - that just occurred as well...
In conclusion: car manufacturers recall their models for less than that. Maybe there are enough users out there that are not speaking out and there may be enough there to have a class action launched...!
June 2017 update:
I just read the latest thread on SDM failures today and rushed over to try my 16-50mm (2008) and 50-135mm (2012) and guess what... none of their SDMs work, either on my K5 or K5IIs. My 10-17mm fisheye and 18-55WR work flawlessly on both cameras.
Granted, I haven't used the 50-135 for a while but I did use my 16-50 2 weeks ago. I tried them, turned the focus wheel, turn the camera off and on, used the AF button and the half press numerous time... no deal! I'm fed up with those SDMs, more so since I had a big argument with Sun Camera of Toronto with the 16-50mm fixed as "under warranty", not mentioning the hassles before. Working the SDM every week is lot of bull...for Pentax products!
All worked well for a couple of years but now I'm convinced that the SDM system is a piece of s...t and i've decided to look seriously into switching to screw drive.
I definitely don't recommend that lens and that's my 2 cents on this subject...!
Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/346697-sdm...#ixzz4j5KgdCmV
Sept 2017 update
Just received the 2 lenses back from UncleVania's. The SDMs are gone, toast, I'm back to screw drive and I'm totally satisfied with this. I still wonder what the fuss was in favour of the SDM because the sound of the screw drive running is minimal and now I know things are back to normal. I put the rating back to a "9".
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2014 Location: Enterprise, Alabama Posts: 1,298 | | Review Date: April 23, 2015 | Not Recommended | Price: $585.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Fast focus | | Cons: | Not sharp, Heavy | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 5
Value: 3
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-30 & K-50
| |
I purchased this lens used with intention of using it to shoot pictures of my grand daughter. The lens is much to heavy to roll around taking pictures of a 1 year old. My daughter and i used it to take some portrait pictures out doors of the grand daughter and no mater how hard we tried could not get sharp pictures. I plan to sell it soon before anything goes wrong!
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2011 Posts: 4,873 | | Review Date: August 4, 2014 | Not Recommended | Price: $650.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | WR. | | Cons: | Images a bit dull, poor sharpness wide open, some aberrations | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 5
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-5
| |
I gave this lens a '7' to comply with forum-wide evaluations even though according to the rating scale shown (5-6 is good) it should really get a 5 or so.
Bought this lens, sold this lens. It's really nothing special. Not particularly sharp, not particularly vibrant. Aberrations are moderate but can be fixed in post.
I'd recommend the Tamron over this lens unless WR is a must. Pentax needs to update this lens, it's really not as good as what they're charging for it these days - I honestly didn't think it was for me at $650. At $1300 it's just silly.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: June, 2011 Location: New York Posts: 33 | | Review Date: December 3, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $849.00
| Rating: 1 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | AF does not work | | New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-3, K-5
| |
I guess I got stuck with one of the bad ones. The AF is locked up right out of the box and not functional. As for MF it seems quite nice - but not really going to test since I have to send back. There really seems like it is a mixed bag for this lens. I have found quite a few reviews that have this lens' AF functionality failing quite often. For the price, Pentax should really do better. I love every other Pentax lens I own - This one left me quite a bit disappointed. Maybe I will feel better about it when I get a lens that actually works.  | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2013 Location: Naples Posts: 10
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 1, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Built, tropicalized, colors, 2.8, some optical "sweet spots". | | Cons: | expensive, inconstant optical quality, SDM issue risk | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 6
New or Used: New
| |
If we can say that STAR means "Professional"... let me say this...
Thi good zoom is NAMED "STAR" and PRICED as it...
... but, for me, it's JUST because it's a TROPICALIZED and TOP LEVELE BUILT one. IN that terms, if you need it and want to pay for it, it's ok, it's a star.
Optically, it is NOT a STAR. The 50-135 and the 60-250 are. This 16-50, if not a copy of higher quality of of the medium level, shoud not be considered a Star.
Professionally, it is NOT a STAR; because of the hight risk of SDM problem, and the cost, in terms of money and time, to fix it out of warranty.
Let me explain my opionion. I had 2 copy of that optic, and tryed another one.
Optical performance: absolutelly non constant form center to border, from wide to tele, from 2.8 to f11.
Generally, this zoom is sharp wide open only at center, where it's just sharp from 16mm to 22mm and from 40 to 50. It very sharp from 23 to 39mm.
Sharpness became better at f4. Very sharp in the center, just sharp on borders. It became very sharp all across the frame only at 5.6. The best sharpness in between 23 and 36mm. In this range it's like a star should be. But if I can appreciate the relative softness around 50mm in the use for potraits, it's such a mess in term of wide angle shots and tele shots. The same behavior it has about contrast and colour aberration, changing across focal lenght and at wider aperture.
The wide angle (16-22) is very prone to flare, low contrast, purple fingering and colour aberration until f5.6. f 4 is not so bad, but not good at all for a "STAR".
Ok, it has a very good colour rendition and tone to tone transition, as a prime, a good contrast (from f4) and some 3d effect, a very good bokeh too... but it's good like this ony at 5.6 or from 23 to 36mm, with sharpness only in the center. It's more like a "medium rank" optical quality, than a "STAR". It makes me think that it's no the best, but just the faster (2.8) one with some "STAR" features like the strong built and the tropicalization. Can it justify the price?! I think not, at least if you dont'n need it too much. The tamron and sigma 2.8 zoom is cheaper and has a not so worse immage quality. We cal live without "tropicalization" and some SMC coluours, or not?
PROBLEM n2: SDM FAILURE
Too much of them has gone, and are still broking, often after warranty exipiration. 300$ and 3 months. It's such a mess for a STAR afeter 5 year of production.
It's a total mess if we think Pentax should permitt the use of screwdrivere AF motor simply modifing 3 or 4 values of the firmware, saving us customers from loosing money and time to get fixed, with the high risk that it will broke again in a short while.
I cant' reccomend thi zoom. It has great colours, a great rendition in some "sweet spot" and a wonderfull built, but for me that's not enought. It's not a Star for me, does not value that hight price.
I would like to say "Buy it used" but with the SDM issue, It should has at least in half warranty perdiod left, that means hight price.
What can I say... try to find a usde, optically and functionally upper level copy... if you do, you will be very satisfayed, as many owners may be not at all.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Posts: 492
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 21, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $1,000.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Build quality | | Cons: | Size, weight, handling | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 6
Value: 5
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-5
| |
I bought this lens because I was looking for a decent standard zoom for my K-5.
I know that there are reliability issues with the lens, so I bought it new for £639 (some £200 less than the current RRP).
It is not a bad lens by any stretch of the imagination. Build quality is excellent and I liked the gold highlights and distance scale. This aspect is certainly way above the competition from Sigma and Tamron. I had few complaints about the image quality. It's not up there with my macro lenses, but perfectly decent:
Autofocus was snappy and accurate. This was partly down to the extremely short focus throw (no more than sixty degrees, if that).
However, problem was: I just didn't like it. I found taking it out and using it more of a chore than a pleasure and this is all down to the handling which is poor. Make no mistake, this is an enormous lens. The weight given above is wrong. With hood mounted, it tipped my kitchen scales at more like 660 grams. The weight is exacerbated by the extremely poor balance - uniquely among zoom lens, the camera is more wieldy with the lens fully zoomed out. Besides the weight, the relative sizes of the zoom and focus rings meant that my hand would, as often as not, twist the focus ring rather than the zoom ring when composing a photograph. Note that this a trait shared with the 50-135.
Another major issue is cost. This lens is plain not good value. Although not quite at the level of the Nikon 17-55, it is significantly more expensive than competing models from Canon and Sony. Given the price, I cannot recommend it. If you're looking for a fast, standard zoom, the Tamron 17-50 is a far better value proposition (optically superior too). If you don't mind sacrificing a little speed for extra reach, the Sigma 17-70 is hard to beat.
| | | | | Banned Registered: March, 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Posts: 1,668 | | Review Date: August 19, 2012 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | Optics, aperature, zoom range. | | Cons: | Significant reliability issues | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 2
Handling: 8
Value: 2
New or Used: New
| |
Please feel welcome to also review all of the comments under the B&H section as well. They match a lot of the comments found on ths site.
I'm suprised that this lens has the Pentax label on it. If one happens to only have this lens for about one year; and also NOT use it on a professional basis - then it should be the lens for you. I would also strongly suggest that if you really do need to get this lens - that you also get as much of an added warranty as one can possibly get - you'll need it. Due to numerous reliability issues, this is also not the one lens to rely upon in any type of circumstance. You will always need a back up second lens with you if you have this lens.
Not only is this the worst Pentax sdm lens but the worse presently marketed Pentax lens -period. I'd even purhcase the lowest price off Pentax brand and consider it better than this one.
It has major issues with build quality and reliability. Problems with focusing ability failure in about the first year (or so) of even moderate (and cautious) use. Also major problems with the zoom locking up.
Sure this does not occur in all of the purchases of the lens', but this lens is the worst example of these concerns.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 2,375
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 1, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $961.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | Build quality, performance at f5.6 | | Cons: | CAs, poor to very poor below f5.6 | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 3
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 1
New or Used: New
Camera Used: Pentax K5
| |
I've found this lens to have great build quality and the weather-sealing is a boon in a damp climate. The autofocus isn't the fastest but it is fast enough and accurate and I've had no problems with it. There is more flare and CA than I was expecting, but then as with any lens these are only hassles if you are not prepared to work around them and/or correct in post.
Apertures:
At f2.8, my 16-50mm is so soft at any focal length as to be unusable for more than the lowest quality shot. Brick wall tests, focus tests, etc, have checked out OK so I think it is just soft, period.
At f4 it is better but still not good and shots at this aperture are really OK only for web use sharpened and reduced if the image is of something taken fairly close. My 18-55mm kit lens does a better job at f8 than my 16-50mm does at f4 or below.
The sweet spot is f5.6. My 16-50mm lens performs well at this aperture, perhaps as it was intended to. Images at f5.6 at 20-45mm are pleasing - with great contrast and Pentax colours and plenty of detail resolved fairly sharply. The image is a bit distorted at the borders at 16-18mm and gets a tad softer at 45-50mm. The sharpness is not up to the standard of my DA limiteds, but as with any lens it's the overall rendering which matters and I like it.
At f8 the lens is better than at f4 but not so good as at f5.6. One can see the sharpness and contrast beginning to go. The slide into softness, diffraction et al starts again at f9 and above.
Overall, however, for a lens marketed as pro and sold for a sky-high price, I am extremely disappointed. Maybe I have a poor copy but checking the web suggests that a lot of folks have had similar experiences with this lens. If it were an f3.5-5.6 or so kit lens for a few bucks the optical performance might be thought outstanding, but for the price (and I bought it for less than it currently goes for) this lens is a ripoff considering the very narrow sweet spot at which it hits the kind of performance its price might suggest.
I realize my rating is rather harsh. If this lens cost considerably less and/or was reworked as an f4 lens and/or had a similar performance at f4 and f8 as it does at f5.6, then I would have rated it much more highly. I would rate it at 8 for its sweet spot performance, docking points for it costing so much and for flare/CA.
Update on 23 July 2012. I have had the lenses calibrated by Pentax service here. The difference was night and day, and I can see that when properly set up this lens can produce work of good quality. Alas, within ten days of getting the lens back, the zoom and the focusing system stuck solid. I managed to work them free very slowly and carefully but there is now a loose and rasping sound from within, so something has failed or popped out. So back to the service centre again. I won't change my rating now. On song, 8 would be fair for this lens but two failures one after the other on a new lens is really deserving of a 3 at best.
| | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2010 Location: Cambridge Posts: 12 | | Review Date: May 19, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $675.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Weather sealing, silent focusing, image quality | | Cons: | SDM reliability, size and weight | |
I've now had the 16-50mm DA* for six months. I bought it second-hand, and immediately had to have the SDM motor and gears replaced (this was paid by the seller, by refunding the repair cost). After the weather sealing on my K-7 failed, some humidity entered the lens, causing the aperture to seize up; I was rather unpleasantly surprised, since I thought I had allowed the lens to dry out for long enough after the incident. And now, six months after the first SDM replacement, the SDM suddenly failed again (while I was hiking in Patagonia), so it's currently having the SDM replaced again.
I really love the image quality of the lens; I've taken some great shots with it, some unfortunately using manual focus. But I'm very unimpressed by the reliability - so much so that I really wouldn't recommend it. I have taken this lens traveling in fairly severe environments twice, and both times it has failed in one way or another. So while I'm willing to give the lens another chance once I get it back, I'm strongly considering replacing it with a Tamron 17-50mm. If Pentax comes up with a reliable replacement for the SDM motor, I'd upgrade the lens in an instant.
One other issue to note is that is that if you've zoomed out and try to use the built-in flash on a K-5/K-7, you get a semicircular shadow on the bottom of your photos from the lens itself (this would presumably be worse with the lens hood on). So if you plan to use flash with this lens at the wider end of the zoom range, you really need an external flash!
| | |
![SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM Review RSS Feed](https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/rss/rss_feeds14x14.gif)
![SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM](https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/221200712913.jpg)
![SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM](javascript:update('https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/221200712913.jpg');)
![SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM](javascript:update('https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/smc_Pentax-DA_16-50_2_8_ALEDIF_SDM_star_optics.jpg');)
![Buy the SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM](https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/camerapics/pentax-button.gif)
![Read our SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM in-depth review!](https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/homepage/pflensseal.gif)
![Add Review of SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM](https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/digitalvb/pentax_red/buttons/addreview.gif)
![Buy the SMC Pentax-DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL [IF] SDM](https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/digitalvb/pentax_red/buttons/buylens.png)
