DA* 16-50mm

Ok, now I've got one, just in time for the good weather to break.
Hey it doesn't matter it's weather sealed...

I am surprised that Mike doesn't use his 16-50. Having written off mine, I replaced it with a 17-70 (being a little short of cash at the time) and have been very disappointed. They are not comparable at all.

The 16-50 is the only zoom lens I have owned whose quality comes close (sometimes!) to the 31mm Limited. And that's saying something.

I am not saying the 17-70 is bad; it's perfectly OK. But the 16-50 is special.

Good luck with yours!

G

Well I'm just beginning that journey of discovery George but my initial findings seem to mimic yours. My idea of a direct comparison with the Pentax 17-70 F4 SDM, may not happen as my "other" 17-70, is currently touring France for a month and the current user has offered me good money for it. Indeed very time he emails me, he ups his offer, I don't think it's coming back! None the less. I think myself and the 16-50 are going to be very happy together, with the added bonus it will keep me away from those pesky Limiteds

Good choice Jules - I've had my DA* for a while and basically it has become my default lens - all the other standard zooms I had have been sold, rendered redundant.....

Yes, it has some magic, something my Nikkor 24-120 f4 lacks and I've had the dreaded SDM failure, but it came back from JP absolutely perfect. In the time the DA* was away I did toy with the DA17-70 and at the time Jessops were doing deals on pentax - the copy they had in Richmond - new, the AF did not work. Was glad to get my lens back.

Yes, I'd put the Nikon 24-120 and the Pentax 17-70 on the same level in all but build.
My initial feeling is that the 16-50 does indeed have "Pixie Dust".

Given that Mike has probably owned an example of every single K-mount lens ever made and now going through the Canon EF lens catalogue I'm not surprised his lenses are used sparingly

Bin there done that.

He said lenses not camera bodies

Unlike you though I still have nikon, Sony and Olympus to go

Must admit though, after using the 16-50mm I have taken the 17-70mm out and replaced it with the DA*. It seems a lot sharper than I remember on the K-10D (last time I tried it)

F2.8 .. sharp enough for me.

Ive never understood the bad press this lens gets, I can only put it down to user error and the thin depth of field at 2.8. Razor sharp image Mike

Im just editing a wedding I shot a couple of weeks ago and I have very very few soft images with the 16-50 99% are razor sharp.

Tried nearly all the lenses too, Yeah I'm a System Whore!

Finances will preclude me from doing it again for the forseeable though...

P.S. Belting image...

Just got mine back from JP after a 4 month break, apart from a few days in the middle, and it is now better than it ever was. On the K-5iis it seems to be much more reliable when focusing, on the K-7 it was almost never in focus and I kind of fell out of love with it.... but now

Got out on the bike,with it yesterday, To what's left of the nearest bit of wildflower meadow, just about the last of the poppies, and a quick scoot out to brugh Marsh on the Solway coast, all in all about two and a half hours riding for ten minutes photography.
I am very happy with the performance...

nice shots, I keep trying to get the time to nip over to Port Carlisle for some sunset shots.

Good to see your enjoying the lens though

V sharp looking poppy shot Jules