16-50* f2.8 owners

Hi all,

Looking at this lens for maybe a future purchase.

Some say it is a superb lens, and other only rate it average. The AP mag that reviewed it recently gave it 94% which isnt bad at all.

How can I be sure im not going to get a duff one. I have seen a couple of S/H ones around.
Are there any serial numbers I should look out for??

Kind regards
Graham

I have one I use on my K20 and its a cracker of a lens. I believe some of the early releases were the ones that had problems but I haven't heard much of late.

Buy a new one which has a warranty and buy from a local dealer so it will be easier to return if there are any issues with it.

I would avoid S/H ones unless I could try it out first. Always ask if there is warranty left on it and where it was purchased from if buying S/H, You will find quite a few were purchased off shore and the warranties may not be valid in the UK.

Can't help you with any particular serial numbers to avoid.

Good luck with it and I thoroughly recommend this lens.

21 pages of S/N and user experiences of the DA*16-50 are found Here.

Good luck,
Martin.

Graham - I've got one and haven't found it anything but a top notch lens. I've not used in wide open as most of my usage is landscape where a long DoF is prefered.

I bought mine from SRS mid July. The treads about some forward/back focusing issues had more or less come to a halt by then IIRC because it didn't put me off.


Steve

I too have one and it's excellent, no probs at all. Got, like Steve, in the summer from SRS.
david

I'm on my third copy, which seems to be a good one. S/N 902XXXXXX

Both previous faulty lenses were changed without question by SRS Microsystems. Perhaps the best advice I can give is to buy from a reputable Pentax Pro dealer that values your satisfaction as much as their profit.

Have to agree with the above posts. I bought my K20d with the 16-50, the first few shots i took were dissapointing and not really in focus. Had I read any of the problems at that time I may have sent it back. But it was just me using too slow shutter speeds for hand held shots. This is my most used lens and I have some lovely sharp images with it.

Splendid lens....

Get it from a Pentax pro centre and you should get good service..

I got a good one first time, well pleased with it. I would avoid the s/h ones though unless you can try them first or they come from a reputable source with a money back gaurantee, its quite possible they are duff ones and the owners cant be arsed getting them swapped for one reason or another.

Bottom line: buy new from a reputable dealer, its a cracking lens and well worth the expenditure for a shiny brand new one

I also held back because of the concerns expressed by many of the apparent lack of consistency of performance.

Pleased to say I got mine, as a Xmas present, from Park Cameras and it works fine. Brilliant lens and an incentive to get the DA* 50-135.

Peter

What should I expect from the DA* 16-50?
I've been running a few tests today with a self constructed test card on a wall(read Blue Peter ) with the my K20D tripod mounted.
In summary I am finding that from F2.8 to F4.5/F5.6 the image is soft with some CA noticeable towards the edges. As soon as you hit F6.7 things spring into high definition! This continues through to F16 (even F19 at a pinch). I would say also this trend is fairly consistent throughout the zoom range. Maybe I'm being unfair but having a Oly ED 12-60 SWD to compare it with doesn't help! What are others experiences with the DA* 16-50?
Thanks.

I didn't notice anything wrong with mine, but maybe I'm easilly pleased

Some shots from my first outing with the 16-50, posted as a few examples of course, not for their photographic merit

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Dublins-Fair-City-9152

My experience with the 16-50 (which is similar to that reported on photozone.de) is that it is very sharp in the centre right from f2.8, but poor around the edges. The edges are a lot better at f4 and good at f5.6/f8.

Mine is slightly de-centered as well, such that the left edge is always slightly softer than the right edge at f2.8.

This doesn't affect what I use it for though, as I never shoot stuff at f2.8 that requires edge-sharpness

There is also a lot of CA/purple fringing at the wider focal lengths.

All in all, I'm sufficiently pleased with mine that it stays on the camera most of the time
R

I would say it is a good to great lens. What I am not so sure about is the value-for-money. I never had the 16-45, which got a lot of praise, not only in this forum. I had the old kit lens from the *istD (18-35/4-5.6) and that certainly is no contender for the 16-50. So the 16-45 might be better value-for-money even if it is a slightly inferior lens (but others have to judge that).

Recently I noticed (but haven't followed up) that I need to activate AF more than once to get the shot focussed. First AF action would stop with the centre (as I used centre AF point at the time) clearly out of focus (and no focus confirmation)). Second AF action then put that right.

The lens cap I don't like at all. Yes, it's centre pinch, which should be good. But the tips of the fingers don't find grip and it slides off the fingers.
That I could tolerate. But it is also sliding off the lens when I pull my camera out of the bag. Not always but quite often.

The SDM is a treat, of course.

Would I buy it again? Yes, I say with only a slight hesitation.

Prieni

Assuming that this was using auto focus I suspect that your DA*16-55 is suffering from a little front, or possibly back, focus. This will be more noticeable wide open and disappear as smaller apertures provide a larger depth of focus. I certainly had this problem with my 2nd, but still an early, example.

However one of the advantages with the K20D is that it allows you to adjust the auto focus point on a lens by lens basis.

I used the focus test chart produced by Tim Jackson but the link to his site does not seem to work any more. I'm sure others can be found.

Glyn

P.S. PM me with your email address if you would like me to send you the Tim Jackson chart and documentation.