Whats wrong with this lens?
Posted 28/04/2013 - 14:11
Link
Oh, and these are all straight from camera.
Thanks
Thanks
Posted 28/04/2013 - 14:53
Link
Well I'm surprised that you can't see what's wrong with it, it's plainly obvious . . .
. . . nothing.
May we know which lens it is? It may be one that has known issues that somebody might no of.
Is it maybe a zoom that suffers from barrel creep, that is, it changes focus when pointed up or down?
Does it rattle when you shake it?
. . . nothing.
May we know which lens it is? It may be one that has known issues that somebody might no of.
Is it maybe a zoom that suffers from barrel creep, that is, it changes focus when pointed up or down?
Does it rattle when you shake it?
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 28/04/2013 - 15:08
Link
If it doesn't show barrel creep then I suspect the problen is with the prvious user. Though it could be a back/front focusing issue with their particular camera.
Certainly looks like you got a bargain.
Certainly looks like you got a bargain.
Mike
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.
.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.
.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio
Posted 28/04/2013 - 15:09
Link
perhaps the seller was blaming his own lack of skill on his equipment
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 28/04/2013 - 16:01
Link
Mannesty wrote:
Well I'm surprised that you can't see what's wrong with it, it's plainly obvious . . .
. . . nothing.
May we know which lens it is? It may be one that has known issues that somebody might no of.
Is it maybe a zoom that suffers from barrel creep, that is, it changes focus when pointed up or down?
Does it rattle when you shake it?
Thanks for taking the time to take a look everyone.Well I'm surprised that you can't see what's wrong with it, it's plainly obvious . . .
. . . nothing.
May we know which lens it is? It may be one that has known issues that somebody might no of.
Is it maybe a zoom that suffers from barrel creep, that is, it changes focus when pointed up or down?
Does it rattle when you shake it?
No, it doesn't rattle.
The lens is a DA* 16-50. Apparently it tends to be out of focus in the top right hand side. It seems to me that its only aperture that's creating the out of focus area. Perhaps the guy that sold it has a problem with part of the sensor in his k5.
I also took a variety of square on shots of a brick wall and couldn't see any out of focus areas there either.
Hopefully, now I've mentioned where the problem supposedly lies, you still won't be able to see a problem.
Cheers
Posted 28/04/2013 - 17:39
Link
Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
[ quote:3496ace15f="Mannesty"]If you got it seriously cheap, you have a bargain there. Well done.[/quote]
[ quote:3496ace15f="Mannesty"]If you got it seriously cheap, you have a bargain there. Well done.[/quote]
Posted 28/04/2013 - 18:10
Link
Renster wrote:
Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
Depends what it is. The shots look fine but if you paid £325 for a basic Pentax 18-55mm zoom it might be a little steep. On the other had if it was £3.25 it would be a bargain. What actually is it?Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
John K
John K
Posted 28/04/2013 - 18:15
Link
JAK wrote:
John K
Hi John, it's a DA* 16-50
Renster wrote:
Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
Depends what it is. The shots look fine but if you paid £325 for a basic Pentax 18-55mm zoom it might be a little steep. On the other had if it was £3.25 it would be a bargain. What actually is it?Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
John K
Posted 28/04/2013 - 18:17
Link
It is difficult to tell if there is decentering based on these shots (which look by the way). A boring brick wall or newspaper test would show any misfocus from one side of the lens to the other.
Posted 28/04/2013 - 18:18
Link
JAK wrote:
John K
You see John - here's what happens when you don't actually read the OPs previous comments......
Renster wrote:
Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
Depends what it is. The shots look fine but if you paid £325 for a basic Pentax 18-55mm zoom it might be a little steep. On the other had if it was £3.25 it would be a bargain. What actually is it?Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
John K
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more
Posted 28/04/2013 - 18:46
Link
Renster wrote:
Yes, I should have spotted the earlier post. Thought I had read all the earlier posts but had missed that!JAK wrote:
John K
Hi John, it's a DA* 16-50Renster wrote:
Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
Depends what it is. The shots look fine but if you paid £325 for a basic Pentax 18-55mm zoom it might be a little steep. On the other had if it was £3.25 it would be a bargain. What actually is it?Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
John K
If there is a problem with that lens, getting it repaired would certainly be cost effective given what they are worth. However, it might well be just fine and you do have a bargain. Those web sized images could hide a multitude of issues but nothing stands out. Curious you need to ask.
I guess it is possible the lens may have had an issue that's been repaired previously, but the owner wasn't happy with it, who knows??
John K
John K
Posted 28/04/2013 - 19:27
Link
Posted 28/04/2013 - 21:11
Link
JAK wrote:
Yes, I should have spotted the earlier post. Thought I had read all the earlier posts but had missed that!Renster wrote:
John K
Hi John, it's a DA* 16-50JAK wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Renster"]Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
Depends what it is. The shots look fine but if you paid £325 for a basic Pentax 18-55mm zoom it might be a little steep. On the other had if it was £3.25 it would be a bargain. What actually is it?[quote:3496ace15f="Renster"]Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?
John K
If there is a problem with that lens, getting it repaired would certainly be cost effective given what they are worth. However, it might well be just fine and you do have a bargain. Those web sized images could hide a multitude of issues but nothing stands out. Curious you need to ask.
I guess it is possible the lens may have had an issue that's been repaired previously, but the owner wasn't happy with it, who knows??
Hi John, I ask because I'm struggling to see the focus problem. The previous owner obviously had an issue with it to sell for the price he did.
He said that he hadn't noticed a problem when using on a kx but had noticed a problem when on the k5. I suppose I can only use it and see if I notice anything. If not, then all well and good. If I do notice something then at least I will be able to describe the problem to a service centre .
John K[/quote]
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.







98 posts
13 years
Chelmsford,
Essex
I took the following shots this morning, hand held. I didnt worry too much about composition etc... I just wanted to take a variety of different shots to see if the problem would show.
Can any of you knowledgeable people point out the problem, because im struggling to see it. Please dont hesitate in telling me I must be blind, because I would like to get it sorted.
Thanks Everyone!!
iso 200, 50mm, f9, 1/400
iso 200, 50mm, f9, 1/400
iso 200, 22mm, f5.6, 1/125
iso 200, 31mm, f4.5, 1/800
iso 200, 50mm, f9, 1/500