Bad review for DA* 16-50mm


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 11:11
I don't think this review will help Pentax sell their DA* lens lens review


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 11:24
I think most people who looking for that range will be very wary of SDM failure too!
Discovering the joys of photography with Pentax


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 11:28
Haven't read it all but it doesn't seem an unfair review from everything else I've seen regarding those lenses.

The Pentax would by third choice out of those as well as the only benefit is the weather sealing which isn't a big deal for me.


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 14:11
Well that's put a spanner in my upgrade plans, I totally agree with every thing they say about the Tamron... I was hoping to upgrade to the Pentax thinking mainly about the weather sealing but also thinking optically it would be better than the Tamron, which I do like. But the flaring findings of the Pentax has now put me off more than anything.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 14:13
The lens did win "Zoom lens of the Year" not so long ago...
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 14:42
mille19 wrote:
I don't think this review will help Pentax sell their DA* lens lens review

Youch! Not a surprise though, when I read posts like this so often


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 14:44
I have a DA* 16-50 and I love it, although I tend not to use it at 16mm very often, and I rarely use it wide open. I thought the review of it was a fair one. I also paid a lot less than the review suggests (although it was a while back). It clearly has limitations but it can produce amazing images as well. you pays your money you takes your choice I guess...
Mat W

My Flickr: link


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 18:05
Ive been thinking of selling my sigma 24-60 to get the da*16-50 but from this review I think im just as well to keep it and try get something a bit wider.. I feel the sigma just isn't wide enough at times.

I don't get it though, Pentax is known to make nice glass and there da* 50-135 and da* 55 f1.4 are known to be good lens so why is there da* 16-50 getting out done by the tameron which I can pick up for around £240?

I know the build quality and WR of the Pentax are good features but the * lens should be up there for there glass as much as anything.


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 21:47
Remember a few months back I was arguing about the pricing for the DA* 16-50 with forum members here and it term a turned a bit ugly.

I was pointing out that point that pentax was overpricing the 16-50 while it is the the sharpest on the market and SDM fails from time to time.

Lots of people say don;t forget about the weather sealing and quick focus shift. Yes very well but I don't care if the lens can go scuba diving withing me if I have risk the SDM from failing all the time, I had experience sending my 50-135 back to pentax for repair and it took a long time and I ended up buying the same lens twice since I couldn't wait. The the 50-135mm lens case I had no choice since it is the best in it's class at this focal length. But for the 16-50, Hello!!! pentax got to wake up!!!! There aren't that many die hard Pentax fans out there will buy this regardless. £600 is far too overpriced for a lens doesn't take sharp picture wide open, bad CAs, SDM fail etc etc.

Pentax just have to come back and admit that there is a design fault and promise every single 16-50 owner to replace with a improved version one the new design is out.

Oh man I am getting upset talking about this topic. Pentax is killing itself and I really want pentax to grow and take more market share by offering photographer the best value. I do not mind the 16-50 is £1k+ as long as it works and produce images as good as the canon 70-200 2.8 mark II.


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 22:49
I find the 16-50 sharp even wide open. it is very easy to get pixel level detail and texture with it on the K10D. I have not used it much on the K-5 yet but from test shots it seems just as good.

f/2.8 sharp.
f/4-6.3 insanely sharp.
f/8 onwards, drops as expected.

I had one SDM failure with an early unit, one of the first into the UK. No problem since replacement unit and that was in 2008.

Price is not bad considering features, build materials and amount of glass.

People can take it or leave it. I wouldn't change mine for anything else.


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 23:09
Hey Geo, don't get too dramatic there! It's just a weak lens in the line up. People can do their research and choose whether to buy it or not. Pentax probably ought to have another look at it and try and come up with something more competitive with the third party lenses though.


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 23:12
Pentaxophile wrote:
It's just a weak lens in the line up.

I have no personal experience of the 16-50, but no Pentax star lens has any business being 'a weak lens in the line-up'.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)


Link Posted 08/10/2011 - 23:47
Being the weakest link in the DA* line up just means it isn't quite as excellent as the others, but clearly it's still far from awful


Link Posted 09/10/2011 - 06:07
IMHO Pentax have an issue producing the highest quality zooms, the 16-50 is bettered or equaled by 3rd party zooms well below it's price and the 50-135 was bettered by a much cheaper (though now discontinued) Sigma 50-150. What Pentax do better than anyone else is the small primes ... you can't be a master of all it seems. Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

Dr. Mhuni

Link Posted 09/10/2011 - 08:52
I have to disagree, Frogfish. I think Pentax does produce good zooms - it's just that perhaps the DA*16-50 doesn't match up (in tests at least - I know that in use many owners love its optical qualities, especially past ca. 24mm) to the competition, particularly when cost is borne in mind.

Other currently available Pentax zooms include the DA16-45, 17-70 & 55-300, all of which I have experience of, and are excellent for their class. Indeed, I imagine that the 17-70 would have performed respectably against the other lenses in this test even though it covers a bigger range - but, importantly, it's f4 not f2.8. Pentax also produces what is widely considered the best kit standard zoom, the 18-55. True, the DA18-135 has met a mixed response. But generally I'd say Pentax are no slouches in either the prime or zoom department, and when compared to other 'branded' lenses they're reasonable value at the moment.

Re. the DA*50-135 & the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 - while the latter is a lovely lens that was generally available for at least £150 less than the DA*, the only ways in which it outperforms the Pentax is in the faster AF and longer range (though the quality dips a bit at wider apertures after ca.130mm). The DA* is smaller (though with an absurdly large hood), lighter, better built, produces better colours and bokeh and - my main reason for switching - is noticeably better wide open (I used to use my Sigma a lot stopped down slightly at f4, which I don't feel is so necessary any more). There's no doubting that the Sigma is an excellent lens - it's just that the DA* is even better.

As for the comparative review over at PF - I don't think it's much of a surprise that the Tamron came out best. It represents extraordinarily good value at the moment compared to the Sigma, never mind the DA*. Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call for Pentax - it is about time they revamped or replaced the 16-50, given the mixed reviews it gets in tests and from users. There is a lot more unanimity about the excellence of the other DA* zooms (notwithstanding SDM issues), the 50-135 & 60-250 - so perhaps it is fair to characterise the 16-50 as something of a weak link.

Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.