Bad review for DA* 16-50mm


woodworm

Link Posted 10/10/2011 - 12:27
Not sure why people are arguing over it, for a start it isn't a bad review, it just didn't score as highly as the alternatives.

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 10/10/2011 - 12:45
Algernon wrote:
Unless a user has done thorough comparison tests against the
best lenses available, because the differences are so minute
the opinion of the user is I'm afraid worthless. You can't
compare one item against itself

If the differences are minute there isn't much to argue about. On the other hand, the lens in question is a lot more expensive than the others, so we might expect it to perform the best too And should not let Pentax off the hook.

Colour and contrast are harder to quantify than sharpness and distortion, and are probably pretty subjective, which explains why so many people remain attached to this lens while others find the alternatives much better.

ChrisA wrote:
Algernon wrote:
The 2nd shot Charles Bridge, Prague, Czech Republic looks softer on the left hand side than the right? ....... yet he's submitted it as an example of what the lens can do?

This is an example of a comment that illustrates the fact that you really can't tell much about the sharpness of a lens from an image that isn't a 100% crop, posted on the web.

Definitely agree! The degree to which people sharpen images after resizing will have vastly more impact than lens softness at this size. An unsharpened shot from a FA43mm will look much softer than a sharpened shot from a FA35-80mm, I bet.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

fatspider

Link Posted 10/10/2011 - 12:51
At the end of the day you pay your money and take your choice, I deliberated long and hard over the 16-50 and eventually an ex-forum member (nathanever) convinced me it was the way to go, I have not regretted the decision, having said that I personally know someone who is on his third lens, so in that respect maybe Pentax should get their act together re QC.
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

pentaxian450

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 01:05
stevejcoe wrote:
We have to remember that these lenses are essentially Tokina designs, repackaged with SDM,weather sealing and SMC.

How can you say that. It might be the other way around. Maybe the Tokina are the re-badged ones. After all, they came out under the Pentax name first.

Or maybe they're a joint venture with inputs from the two manufacturers.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Last Edited by pentaxian450 on 11/10/2011 - 01:09

Mannesty

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 08:14
If you believe the review, you won't buy one. If you believe what users say about this lens, you probably will.

The DA* 16-50mm lens is a very good performer in almost all scenarios. Yes it had it's problems when first introduced, but I think these have largely been sorted now.

I returned my first two copies for focussing issues. My third, made much later than the previous two, hasn't put a foot wrong and is my 2nd most used lens. My DA* 60-250mm has had a little more exercise than the 16-50mm, but not much.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 08:18
Yes, we can now add Pentaxforums to the list of review sites 'biased against Pentax'.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

LennyBloke

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 08:49
When I took my trip to SRS to buy a K20D (a while ago now ) I agonised over whether to take a chance on the 16-50 - I had read so many posts about SDM failures and other problems, anyway I did take the chance and although instinctively I am a prime lens shooter, if I need an "all rounder" then this is the 1st choice lens. It is by far the best quality wide-short tele zoom I have used, and the weather sealing and fast aperture are a real bonus.

I used to take a lot of notice of lens reviews, but my attitude has changed greatly. Now I will often buy a lens, use it for a while then decide whether it suits me - if it doesn't I will sell it, if it does I keep it !
LennyBloke

m42geo

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 10:01
LennyBloke wrote:

I used to take a lot of notice of lens reviews, but my attitude has changed greatly. Now I will often buy a lens, use it for a while then decide whether it suits me - if it doesn't I will sell it, if it does I keep it !

Not everyone is able to afford to buy a new lens to test it and sell it taking a 40% lost in value. If you buy a 2nd hand then you just lost 10% which is ok but 40% is far too much for me.

RayB

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 11:50
I took one of these on hire from SRS back in April with a view to purchase, at the time I posted that it was the best lens I'd ever used - I now own one.

During my recent visit to Mongolia it was the default lens on the camera, only coming off if I needed to use something else.

LennyBloke

Link Posted 11/10/2011 - 12:01
m42geo wrote:
Not everyone is able to afford to buy a new lens to test it and sell it taking a 40% lost in value. If you buy a 2nd hand then you just lost 10% which is ok but 40% is far too much for me.

I wouldn't buy a lens in the first place if I didn't expect it to be suitable for my needs, and buying 2nd hand does run a slightly higher risk, pariticularly with a lens that has a chequered reputaion (i.e. an early 16-50 that may be more prone to SDM failure). As for a 40% drop in value, I've never lost that much on re-selling a lens - some I lose a little, some I make a little, overall I break even. An example that illustrates my point is the 50mm f1.2 A lens - I bought one of these expecting it to be perfect for my uses, but I never got on with it, yet many people rank it amongst the top A* lenses.

I don't know the full rules on distance selling but I suspect you can purchase a lens, try it out and if you're not happy return it (within a reasonable period) - I've never done this and I'm not advocating it, but it may be a vaild way to "try out" a lens. I;m sure someone will correct me on this if I'm wrong.
LennyBloke

George Lazarette

Link Posted 12/10/2011 - 01:25
Algernon wrote:
Unless a user has done thorough comparison tests against the best lenses available, because the differences are so minute the opinion of the user is I'm afraid worthless. You can't
compare one item against itself

Hmm.

I happen to own the three FA Limiteds, and I also own or have owned a number of other top class Pentax lenses.

I don't do "thorough comparison tests"; I just look at the pictures, and compare them with the results I get from my other lenses, good and bad.

It was by this method that I concluded that my copy of the 16-50 was a very good lens.

Furthermore, and we have discussed this here before, there is more to picture quality than lens tests can tell you. You can't objectively measure bokeh; and the subtle combination of contrast and colour that makes a good lens special also eludes measurement.

You appear to be the sort of person who buys a car on the basis of an article in a magazine, rather than taking a test drive and making up his own mind.

Each to his own, but I prefer to trust my own judgement, and that of others with experience.
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Dr. Mhuni

Link Posted 12/10/2011 - 06:06
I base my purchases principally on user feedback, however, test results can't be dismissed. The problem with user feedback is you don't know what the user is comparing their lens with. Not everyone has FA ltds! Also, even those who have high quality glass with which to compare performance often won't have experience of the direct competition.

To take the three lenses under review at PF - while many might complain that the DA* is better than the review infers, this could just mean that the Tamron and Sigma are quite exceptional.
Mhuni

500px

m42geo

Link Posted 12/10/2011 - 08:16
Guys, anyone has own a the DA 16-50, the old sigma 18-50 2.8, the new sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 at the same time. Would be interesting to hear opinion from such person.

Thanks

Jonathan-Mac

Link Posted 12/10/2011 - 08:21
m42geo wrote:
Guys, anyone has own a the DA 16-50, the old sigma 18-50 2.8, the new sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 at the same time. Would be interesting to hear opinion from such person.

Thanks

Any such person would have to have SERIOUS LBA!
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses

K10D

Link Posted 12/10/2011 - 08:48
I have my second 16-50SDM after I killed the first one. First was very sharp and no SDM issues, as is my new one. I also bought the new Sigma 17-50 OS whilst I was waiting for Pentax Australia to determine repair or replace (at my cost) the first SDM.

I've posted images on the site from both lenses. The Sigma is an excellent lens as is the Pentax. I did miss the extra 1mm shorter length of the SDM whilst using the sigma.

I'll be using the Sigma on a K7 this coming weekend since the SDM has been the choice for a while.

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