DA* 16-50mm Review

It is not at all relevant to look at Canon and Nikon lenses when deciding what lens to buy for a Pentax camera if you intend never to buy a Canon or Nikon camera.

Nathan, you are wrongly assuming that I have a 16-45. In fact I had one but replaced it with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 to get more speed (and a little more length). I mentioned the 16-45 because the 16-50 should be enough better to justify buying it. It also should be better than the Tamron to justify the considerably higher price (and weight).

I'm sure it is better in some ways, perhaps important ways, but there is evidence from a highly respectible reviewer that shows that it is not "MUCH" better than the 16-45 at F4 to F8, for example. You said it was much better, so I'm just alerting readers that that MAY not be true for the apertures that they share at least.

It is not pointless to criticse a lens I don't have if it makes people in the process of choosing a lens think again or some more about the alternatives. I'm not criticising it directly anyway. I am merely pointing to a review and suggesting that people compare the findings to reviews of other lenses as PART of their decision making process.

Certainly I can understand you being defensive about the lens, but there is no need to be dismissive of anyone who dares to even raise questions about it just because they don't own one. It doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong just because I don't have the evidence directly. If it gets people researching a little more deeply, my posts are justified, I think.

ps. This thread is called "DA* 16-50mm Review". You can't critise people for discussing the review that this thread is about!

Pete, I apologize to whoever feels I have been dismissive, it really was not my intention to offend anybody here.

I gave my personal opinion, which comes from personal experience. I honestly think that giving opinions on things we don't know is pointless, and I try not to do it myself.

Your posts are always justified and this needn't mentioning.

I think that you have raised an issue that has little to do with my previous posts. I made a point about the importance of the market in the choice of a lens - it was not referred to the pentax user market, but to photography in a wider sense. Resolution charts are really not my concern.

I also like 'people' to be able to choose freely, and with as much information as possible, yet I argue that criticizing something without having experienced it, only damages the product, or brand.


I hope you are as happy with your Tamron as I am with the DA*, because this is what its all about!

Good night,
Nathan

Quite true. It's built around the three FA Limiteds.

Sorry, couldn't resist

That's being dismissive again and also incorrect. The comments I gave were about the Photozone reviews. I know about the reviews and the reviewer gave an opinion on something he does know from personal experience.

Regarding resolution: it is a very important aspect of a lens, and surely one main reason why people buy more expensive lenses rather than cheaper ones is to get sharper images or more detail. Other characteristics you can often work around, but you can't add resolution after you've taken the picture.

I trust Photozone more than user reviews to reveal a lens's resolution. By the way, they make efforts to obtain a good sample lens and know how to recognise a poor one. If concerned that their sample is below par, they mention it in the review and explain the likely effects on the test so that you can take them into account.

I'm sparing when it comes to commenting on products that I have not used myself. I do not do it when there is no point.

I went through the process of deciding what good quality fast lens of this sort of focal range to buy myself. That included spending a lot of time reading reviews and comparing their findings. What I am doing here is sharing what I learnt for the sake of others doing the same thing. That's the point. If there's a point, it ain't pointless!

If you are not happy with the Photozone reviews then your complaint should be with the reviewer. Don't shoot the messenger! If the product and brand is truly good, they will not be damaged by dicussing the reviews.

I'm very happy with my Tamron lens, except AF with it and the K10D isn't always reliable. I've seen similar comments from some users of the 16-50 as well. I suspect it's more to do with the camera than the lens when used with fast zooms. Anyway when focused properly it's sharp right from F2.8 and has nice image quality generally. I will post some examples when I get better organisd.

Great!

I have found this thread to be most useful. I have been thinking for a while now that I need to up my game so to speak and get one of these DA* lenses. I have not taken the jump yet mainly due to lack of (or unwilling to part with ) funds.

I appreciate a lot of the comments made and whilst I agree one should not discount an item without having tried it, it is also equally valid to form an opinion based on reviews, especially when the reviews are from a credible source. The only reason I have a Pentax is because I studied many reviews [including this forum] and I can comfortably explain to a friend the differences between my K10D and the Nikon D80, the other camera I was considering, and I can assert why I made my choice and those assertions are valid even though I have never owned a D80.

I will wait a while before considering a DA* if the quality control is not that great. It is not that I don't trust Pentax but I don't trust myself. I will probably blame my lack of focus or steadiness or poor composition before I blame the lens and that will be a big waste of £400+ . It is quite easy to measure whether a Ferrari does what it says it does. It looks that part, it goes to 200mph etc. But sharpness is still a fuzzy concept to me. How sharp is sharp enough? I did return a Sigma 17-70 recently because I thought it wasn't sharp but that was the first time I was able to notice that. I was also very weary as I bought the lens on ebay and I had little trust to begin with. Maybe it all comes with experience. test every lens thoroughly no matter where you buy it and no matter what lens you have bought.

That's my 2 cents worth for any other newbies considering splashing out.

How do you know they haven't?

If you are in the market, buy from SRS, and if you don't get a good one they will replace it.

I have one, and it never comes off the camera. Fortunately I have a second body for my other lenses.

G

Agreed - the best course of action - both buying a DA* 16-50 from SRS and keeping it permanently on a body.

Well my new 16-50 seems to be OK as does the 50-135

All my fears it seems were totally unfounded (I think) I am really pleased I took Nathans advice and got this lens over the 17-70.

I still cant get over the speed of the focus, I took them both along to my camera club this week and first up to view was a fellow K10D owner, I made sure the 16-50 was well out of focus on a designated spot, I handed him the camera and suggested he point it there, he pressed the shutter, exclaimed "NO WAY" and took the camera from his eye to look it over, I got the impression he was looking for a trick of some sort

While I'm here I may as well come to the defence of Canon owners and say they are not all anti-Pentax morons, several members showed a positive interest in both K20D and the lenses, one was especially surprised at the price of the 16-50 compared to the canon and nikon equivelents especially as it included the coatings and sealing, bemoaning his own lenses been full of dust, other praises for the Pentax were the built in SR, the Hyper-Program mode, the adjustment for different lenses, the one touch RAW button was mentioned, and most of all the weather sealing

Need I say more?

I am very very happy for you, and I hope you enjoy your new gear to the fullest.

And I am happy i've helped a bit.

I am very envious of the 50-135, and a little of the K20, but I know that something else will come up soon...

Enjoy your feast!

Nathan

You always pay a lot for f2.8 on a zoom lens.

G

£449 is an awful lot. If it is just for the extra stop, you could get that from a Sigma or Tamron zoom by paying only £279 to £299.

Compared to the 16-45 f4, it was claimed that the 16-50's performance at medium apertures was much better as well, whereas the Photozone review does not show that.

You are a real fighter Pete

...........more than just the extra stop