DA* 16-50 Someone has one!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=24143227

Well they are on their way, shame you can't gauge the quality from his shots as two are underexposed and the other is sharp but has no accessible EXIF.

Vistek in Toronto has changed thier website.....
The 16-50 no longer reads "Be the first to know....when this item becomes available..."
It is now listed as Special Order!

Out of curiosity, is there anything at all about one of these lenses that you could post on the web*, that would convincingly show the benefit of having a 16-50 DA* as opposed to a 16-45, as opposed to a peasant's kit 18-55?

What's the actual difference between these lenses, in reality? How good do you have to be, to tell the difference?

Weather sealing, weather shmealing. That's not what I'm asking. Nor about focus in half the time, nor with half the noise.

__________
* without incurring a GL accusation of pixel-peeping, of course.

The main reason to get it is the F2.8 aperture, that makes a huge difference. Weather sealing and SDM are a bonus really. As the top of the range glass resolution should be more consistent across the zoom range, with little vignette and CA. Nice and sharp high resolution capabilities and good bokeh are also what should be expected.

Well it's an F2.8 for a start.

I don't see why such a question needs asking...

Sure, point taken.

Is it worth 10 times the price of the 18-55, given how often you might use it at F2.8?

Please elaborate

Quantify 'huge'.

What can you show me, that makes the difference obvious. Don't forget, they have to sell a lot of them, presumably even to peasants like me, to break even...

I shoot Weddings.....
faster focus, less noise, ability to get images in lower light, with faster shutters and less flash ARE exactly why I'd want those lenses.

You have to use what works. There's always trade offs. You can get excellent images with all three lenses. The question is HOW MANY excellent images under HOW MANY different conditions.

I get paid to pull out aces under conditions where others get jokers.....
Having the right equipment to do that costs more.....

I really don't find my 18-55 is fast enough and the corner sharpness is not good.

F2.8 would be very good in dark situations/indoors and for shallow DoF.



Well, you ask what is special about it, it is a constant F2.8 zoom, that is the main reason for getting it. If you don't need a fast lens then all the better as you save a good bit of money. Prices are not linear with improvement in quality though.

Perfect, extra edge goes a long way.

If you need to ask why then 16-55 2.8 is better then you don't need it!

If you don't care about weather sealing and SDM focusing, then it's the image quality and speed you care about. It basically gives you faster auto-focusing on low-light situations, higher shutter speeds (with shallower DOF) and more (and better, hopefully) bokeh, all with good image quality.

If you don't care about a faster zoom, then you don't care about the DA* 16-50. The 16-45 or even the 18-55 will be quite enough for your needs.

Remember, these lenses are made for people that either really need them for a living or love having these pieces of art (and can afford them). That's probably not many of us. That's why it's expensive...

Have fun!
--
Flink

I find the f5.6 at the wide end of many lenses very limiting, especially in lower light, so this is why I have been buying many of the 'faster'lenses...

f2. 8 is great for portraiture etc where a shallower depth of field is desirable.....

If it gives sharp images, with minimal CA and no vignetting, plus that faster focus then I believe it will be worth the expense...the vignetting on the 18-55 is a pain, as is the f5.6 at the wide end.