DA* 16-50mm

jules
Posted 22/07/2013 - 09:54 Link
I'd like to solicit opinions on this Lens, with all my current wheeling and dealing I've ended up with two Pentax 17-70'S & a SINGLE limited DA35 F2.8 MACRO, I want to run myself a comparison between the 17-70 and 16-50, I love the 35 macro but some of you may know I've been down that road before. I want what I want/need in as few lenses as possible, so that there are no passengers this time around. I'm certain of my DA* 50-135/300 and the Siggy 8-16, I'd like to have a lightweight back Packing combo of the 16-50 and 50-135 because of the weather sealing which is important to me, the 17-70 doesn't quite scrub up there as it's rotating focus ring isn't sealed as far as I am aware but optically both of mine are superb and pretty much in use for 70+% of my shots, if it doesn't measure up, I'll just get the 21/40/70 Ltd like I had before...
I've read most of the reviews on the Lens which seem to put it as no worse than the 17-70 in the same range and comparable F stops, it's just a bit soft at F2.8 which is ok by me as if I used it for limited depth of field photography I'd likely not be bothered by the edges anyway...
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Edited by jules: 22/07/2013 - 09:57
MattMatic
Posted 22/07/2013 - 10:51 - Helpful Comment Link
Have had the DA17-70 and now the DA*16-50.

The DA* has something "extra" which isn't easily defined The rendition is very close, but the DA* has some pixie-dust applied

I would say that it does have some little foibles like CA and purple fringing that can crop up, especially with in-camera JPGs (more than the DA17-70). But, in practice it's never an issue at all when using RAW + Lightroom and the supplied lens profiles

For me, the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 cover 95% of my photography and are always in my kit bag. The DA12-24 has most of the remaining, with the FA50/1.4 + DA55-300 for the odd occasions.

Hope that helps!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Edited by MattMatic: 22/07/2013 - 10:51
Mike-P
Posted 22/07/2013 - 13:11 - Helpful Comment Link
I have both and the 16-50mm just sits at home on the shelf while the 17-70mm is permanently in my bag. Not sure why, could just be that the 17-70mm is lighter and takes up less space .. I have never really given the DA* a chance though.
jules
Posted 22/07/2013 - 14:42 Link
To be honest Mike it was your comments on the subject that made me leave it alone the first time around, I want to give it a try, if I don't like it fair enough but I want to give it a good go before I jump into Limited land again, because I know what I'm like and I's just end up with em all but they are just trophies/paperweights if they are not getting used...
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Mike-P
Posted 22/07/2013 - 14:53 Link
I'm not trying to put you off Jules, a lot of people love the lens. I tend to use upwards of 50mm a lot more than I do the wider focal lengths so for me the 17-70mm does fine (as did the 16-45mm before it).
jules
Posted 22/07/2013 - 15:27 Link
I know Mike, didn't mean to come across like I was blaming you for my past Lens misdemeanours I've done that all by myself!

I like the idea of a basic three Lens kit for Landscapes IE: Siggy 8-16/Pentax 16-50 and 50-135, and I've got the DA*300 for longer, I'd love Pentax to bring on the fabled 1.4X convertor and I reckon I'd be set, four Lenses but what a set...
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
cabstar
Posted 22/07/2013 - 15:31 - Helpful Comment Link
Its really soft at 2.8 particularly at the wide end

Comment Image


Not bad at f/5 either

Comment Image


At f/8 its really sharp

Comment Image
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released
Edited by cabstar: 22/07/2013 - 15:35
jules
Posted 22/07/2013 - 16:44 Link
He He
Ok then, now just to acquire one!
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
jules
Posted 22/07/2013 - 21:04 Link
May have sourced one, owner willing... Here's hoping.
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
jules
Posted 23/07/2013 - 09:42 Link
I suspect the trail is going cold, anyone else got one they don't use?
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
jules
Posted 27/07/2013 - 20:47 Link
Got one! Should be here early next week, looking forward to putting it thru its paces.
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Mike-P
Posted 27/07/2013 - 20:51 Link
I actually used mine yesterday

It's been so long the SDM motor had seized up.
jules
Posted 27/07/2013 - 21:36 Link
Don't sound too good?
Did it free up?
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Mike-P
Posted 27/07/2013 - 22:10 Link
jules wrote:
Did it free up?
Yes, couple of quick manual turns of the focus ring sorted it.
jules
Posted 28/07/2013 - 05:05 Link
Pleased to hear it!
The addage wirh this one and the 50-135 seems to be to use them on a regular basis, part of the reason I've gone for only four Lenses this time around, I want to be able to carry rhem all, all of the time, I still want the 200 F2.8 (So make that five:twisted but just as a gap filler (between 135 and 300:shock and because I just like the Lens...
Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo