DA*16-50 Comments

MattMatic · 2011-06-25T22:56:35+0100

Thought I'd put up my initial comments on the DA*16-50. It seems to have received a lot of 'bad press', well, 'bad Internet' (which isn't difficult for any subject or object :roll:) Build quality is exactly what you'd expect from the DA* series - superb. It's has a lovely balance and feel, with nicely damped focus ring that allows manual focus (even though the focus throw is merely about 1/4 turn). Optically - first impression is stunning! To test, I used Live view and focussed at f/2.8 and the result was superb! But (big but), using normal focus it was massively out. Actually, to be more precise, my K-5 was out and so was the lens. So, I tweaked about (with some other techniques that I may document sometime!) and got the DA*16-50 focussing correctly ;) Had I not gone through that process I would be hugely disappointed ;) Second optical observation is that under some situations it's a purple fringing monster in JPG! :shock: I was shooting JPG for snapshots of the family... ...but all the DNG files were stonkingly good. Lightroom 3 with the profiles does an excellent job of removing the CA, distortion, and any vignetting. So, I've learned a couple of good lessons - test the focus of a new bit of kit, and use RAW always :P :lol: There definitely is 'something' about the rendering of this lens. The bokeh was infinitely better than I'd read about on the Internet (another lesson reaffirmed :P), and because it focusses closer than the 50/1.4 I may find I'm using this beast more and more for shallow DoF. Even at 16mm f/2.8 the DoF is very shallow! Perhaps it's some kind of emotional response (like handling a Limited 31mm :D), but there's something magical about it... ...will keep you posted with some real shots soon (have a very exciting commission request coming up that will see this lens getting some serious use! ;) ) For now a sample shot processed in LR3 (taken in JPG through a window). Matt

Lenses for Pentax CamerasLenses for Pentax Ca...

Add Comment

vrapan vrapan

314 posts
15 years
Watford

Posted 30/01/2012 - 21:27 Link

I thought that LCAs are kinda easy to correct on RAW?

redbusa99 redbusa99

1700 posts
17 years
stroud,glos

Posted 31/01/2012 - 01:32 Link

how close to the chart do you go? keep seeing different ideas from 5x focal length to just beyond min. focal length, help much appreciated

odd lens or 2

Flickr

MattMatic MattMatic

5870 posts
24 years
Sussex,
UK

Posted 31/01/2012 - 10:56 Link

Quote:
I thought that LCAs are kinda easy to correct on RAW?

It depends on the terminology... (This may help)

Lateral, or Transverse CA can be corrected in RAW easily.

Longitudinal, or Axial CA is a pain and cannot be easily corrected.
I can do it in Photoshop without too much trouble, but it's a manual process and not automatic

It's a bit like Purple Fringing (which some say is down to the sensor) - there are some actions available that work quite well (and usually reduce the saturation of the fringe to make it more acceptable).

I may try and post an image to show what I really mean...

Re: AF adjust. One service manual uses the D-FA 50 Macro at a distance of 1m to the chart (with a 30 degree angle). But that's just one test

Matt

http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Edited by MattMatic: 31/01/2012 - 10:57