DA* 16-50

Despite my praise for the 18-55mm lens in another post here, I am thinking of getting the DA* 16-50mm. I like to manually focus a lot and use a split prism screen which sufferes from balckout with the slow "kit" lens.

From the review I have read on http://www.photozone.de/pentax/405-pentax_1650_28 it appears that the DA* 16-50 suffers from CA, and indeed much worse than the "kit" lens.

I do seem to recall there were quality control issues when this lens first released.

I would be grateful for any members experience with the DA* 16-50, in particular with regard to the CA.

Its a great lens, and you will be astonished by the image quality.

To avoid quality control issues, go to buy in shop, and make sure it is a good copy, and you have good focus with your body.

I have never noticed any issues with CA, the lens usually performs brilliantly.

Regards,

I took Nathans advice and got the 16-50 despite having the same reservation as yourself, all I can say is Its a great lens, and you will be astonished by the image quality.

All these were taken with it;

link

link

Thanks to you both for your input. I am still debating. Of course the simple question "do I need it" is irrelevent. I do have a severe case of LBA !

Talking of a serious case of LBA, I just bought the DA*16-50, DA*50-135, DA 14-2.8, 31Ltd, 43Ltd and 77Ltd in one shot. The bill was hefty, but it was well worth it.

Hope you got a good deal

Well done Yves,

you did your bit to end the global financial crisis in the photographic equipment section
Will they be hidden for Easter instead of eggs?

Peter,

the 16-50 does show CA. If I remember to do so I will convert one for you without CA correction and post a 100% (or bigger) crop.
I could imagine that it is a bit worse than the kit lens as it is 2 mm wider, which can make a difference. But I don't have a 18-55 to compare...

Prieni

He's buying the wrong brand for Canada though - surely he should be getting Canadian made Leica glass

My credit card wilted in fear when I read what he'd bought though! Impressive shopping power.

Mike

Unfortunately, I had to buy them because my van was broken in a few weeks ago, and my lenses (those that were in) got stolen. Now, I know the value of a good insurance. Unfortunately, those are not the same as what has been stolen.

I guess that's what insurance is for - I checked mine recently but it wouldn't cover lenses worth that much in one hit. But then again I haven't got such an excellent set of lenses!

Bummer to experience the theft but at least your insurer was good about it.

Mike

Bit off topic here but I have an insurer that insures an amount rather than the equipment. So there's none of this writing the cameras names, makes and serial numbers down.
If there's ever I time I need to claim then I inform the police of what's been taken then the insurers pay out. I have insurance for £10,500

Paul

It wasn't painless, since most of the stolen lenses are out of production, and the insurer wanted to pay the value of the lenses when bought. Needless to say, there was quite a bit af arguments going forth and back. The FA*85 1.4 is worth quite a bit more now than when I bought it. Ditto for the FA*80-200 2.8. We finally managed to agree on the amount, but I'm not entirely pleasd. Come to think about it, the insurer wasn't to pleased either, so, maybe it was an acceptable compromise. The 77 is very good, but I miss the 85. They don't behave the same.

As promised, here is a 100 percent crop of the lower right corner of a shot with the 16-50 at 16 mm, F11:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/100pc_crop-1.jpg[/IMG]

It was the first 16 mm one I could find. There certainly is some CA but not a lot (5 and 6 in SilkyPix with the K20D, if you use that combination).
For reference, here is the full pic:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP5477.jpg[/IMG]
Perhaps not my best shot ever, but it does show the CA...

Prieni

I have a pre-set in Lightroom that completely removes all CA from my 16-50 shots and also removes PF. Each lens will vary but most should be quite similar if they are good copies. I've had two copies and they had quite different CA and PF. The first had misaligned elements and the SDM broke.

In my copy the PF is actually caused by a mixing of CA of cyan and red so it vanishes with ease. and at most focal lengths the adjustment for CA is basically the same.

I don't have an 18-55 so can't compare but I agree with Prieni it does suffer from CA, some times it is more noticeable than others.
Generally I like the lens, it's a little large but has the great benefit of weather and dust proofing (for me at least). At the 'right' aperture (f/8 @ 16mm and f/5.6 @ 50mm) it is extremely sharp across the frame. Wide open it's not so great (although still good in the centre) which is shame but not a disaster. At the end of the day CA is quite easily removed with a good RAW converter.