NEW Pentax DA 16-50 Lens Question

Sigh...

Purple fringing isn't just down to the lens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_fringing

You'll never get away from PF, even with the most expensive lenses. Like dust - just deal with it
EDIT: Like here: http://madcat.xmgfree.com/site/pf_removal.html

Matt

Exactly.

Listen to the guru.

Desaturating the PF area is very logical considering the nature of PF. Very high contrast usually means low colour.

Just don't desaturate too much. And if all else fails, turn the image into a B&W.

Yes. It's not a work of art just a holiday snap but it does illustrate my point. jpeg straight out of camera re-sized to 1200x800 which is the usual size that I upload to flickr and pbase. Look at the bit that I highlighted and the burglar alarm box to the left. The fringing is still easy to see without pixel peeping. This is taken from 1/9 of the frame and as the difference between print and screen resolution is about 4x the fringing would be clearly visible on a print smaller than A4. I have nothing against Pentax. I have used their stuff for 25 years. My disappointment is with this lens because it performs worse than an independant lens at 2/3 the price and I chose it because I thought it would be better. None of my other Pentax lenses have this problem and none of them are digital lenses. I just hope the 16-50 will be better. Is that unreasonable?




Carl

Except that dust can be removed or prevented prior to taking photographss and spotting with the spot healing tool in CS2 can be made invisible. Thanks for the links, the madcat one looks like it could be useful in some circumstances.

Carl

I agree - I don't think you're pixel peeping. You might not notice it at full frame, but once you do, it's obvious and drives you nuts.

I had exactly this experience with a Sigma 400mm lens - I noticed the purple fringing at full frame (it was worse than this), and only then cropped to have a closer look.

I'd metered for the foreground, but there was a high contrast, light background just as in your example.

I never noticed PF before I went digital, and I don't think this is entirely accounted for by the fact that I crop more, and look more closely, at my digital photos than I ever did with film.

As Matt says, and as some of the various references suggest, it isn't just down to the lens.

There's an interesting article at

http://wiki.panotools.org/Chromatic_aberration

and another one at

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html

They don't answer all the questions, and you start to lose the will to live quite quickly once you start to try and work it all out. There's no simple answer, I suspect.

Chris

I don't think I would be as bothered about this issue if it had been an independent lens because the marque snob in us all enables us to accept the failings of 'inferior' brands but this is the best that Pentax has to offer at the moment and the reason that I responded to this thread in the first place was to express my wish that the next best that they have to offer is better than this one in this respect. In all other ways I think that the 16-45 is a marvelous lens which is why I am keeping hold of it for now. It is the one that when I take my macro lens off is always on the camera. A bit more reach would be nice but the wide end compensates and I have my 28-70 f4 to fill in (which incidentally has never had this problem). We shall see what the future brings.

Carl

So has anyone got their hands on a DA* 16-50mm or 50-135mm yet?

I am told Augustus by a Dutch supplier, and they are quoting 699 Eur for the lens (about 470 pounds)..... The 50-135 is 779 Eur (about 550 GBP)....

Having just bought an FA 50 mm and the AF360 flash I need to save my pennies up first..

You've been in Holland too long! But at least you put a capital letter. Was that Konijnenberg who quoted that date and price?

it was on their website....apparently 200 EUR saving on RRP - I will wait for the reviews first......

So June slipped to July and now to August and noone has actually seen or held or tested a finished version in the flesh.

Actually, people have held and used the 16-50, but no-one, it seems, who posts here.

I hate to mention DupeReview in civilised company, but you will find a thread or two there.

G

didn't Chris at SRS get a demo a couple of months back? no piccys though

Come on Pentax! my K10D is going to be a year old at this rate before I can even gaze longingly at a lens that matches its features.

Hi everyone,

Sorry it has taken a while - please find links to a selection of images we took of the new lenses (they were a bit rushed!)

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z68/srsmicrosystems/DSCN6503.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z68/srsmicrosystems/DSCN6506.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z68/srsmicrosystems/DSCN6511.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z68/srsmicrosystems/DSCN6515.jpg
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z68/srsmicrosystems/DSCN6516.jpg


Speak soon,

Chris

Notice the Hoya filters on both lenses!!

Chris