WTB DA* 16-50mm

The title says it all. Have recently purchased DA*50-135 and think it is awesome- the 16-50 would give me all the zoom I will ever need (okay so maybe I'll want the 60-250 next, and then probably the 200 or 300,and I dont own a ltd at all.... oh god will it ever end??)

The short brutal answer is NO! the dreaded LBA is incurable

Have a look at SRS and see if they have any in, Its rare that forum members will part with them (unles changing systems)

SRS have a 2nd hand one for sale at the moment.

Base on reviews the DA* 16-50 is no way as good as the DA* 50-135. If weather seal is important for you then yes go for the DA* 16-50 but if IQ is what you are after then I suggest you get the new sigma 17-50 or the tamron 17-50 and if you want it even cheaper the sigma discountinoused 18-50 is still better than the DA*16-50. I picked up my Sigma 18-50 for £150 2nd hand.

Which reviews?

DA* 16-50 review. They rated it 3* only in term of IQ
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/405-pentax_1650_28

Sigma 18-50 2.8 review. Not much better but it is alot cheaper.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-...

Tamron 17-50 2.8 review. Cheaper and better. The review is done on a Nikon camera but it the same lens.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/637-tamron175028d7000

sigma 17-50 2.8 review. Again it is better in term of IQ
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os

Finally just one more review done a while ago for the DA*16-50 vs 18-50 sigma.
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2007/09/shootout-again-da-16-50-vs-sigma-18.html

MMMmmmm, m42geo you've got me thinking.

I shall start a thread in the lens section.

Get a Tamron 17-50mm instead and spend the difference on that Ltd! User reports on the 16-50mm are not glowing, and many seem to end up getting, and preferring, the Tamron 17-50. Pentax 16-45mm is another option.

I've moved this to lenses as it's really a discussion.

Yes I support you get the tamron 17-50. My brother has one for his Sony DSLR and that one you can comapre it with you DA*50-135. Save you some money so perhaps you can add another wide lens on your shopping list.

IMO the DA* 16-50 is just well over priced, the lens is designed by tokina and they make Canon and Nikon mount for this lens and it cost only £400 brand new. We as pentax users are being punished not able to use tokina branded lenses.

I stay with pentax is purely becuase the FA limited lenses are unbeatable performers.

The 16/45 is very hard to beat!

Hmm.

The problem with tests is that they tend to over-emphasise perceived failings which in reality are often not a problem.

The resolution of the 16-50 is very good in real-life situations, and when I had one I never once had cause to complain about image quality.

Back-focussing can now be adjusted easily in the camera, so that is not an issue.

Focussing is pretty fast, and super-quiet.

I replaced my 16-50 with a 17-70, partly because cash was tight, and partly because I wanted the extra reach. But I wouldn't dissuade anyone from buying a 16-50 if it meets their needs - it's a gorgeous lens which in real-world use gives superb results.

BTW, Ricehigh has a long-established grudge against Pentax. It is best to ignore everything written by him.

G

Thank you for posting the links to various tests. These days tests are very difficult to compare because the camera/lens is being tested as a combination and all the tests used different set ups over a number of years. It's not even really possible to compare one tester's results with another's. The 16-50mm is being tested on a K10D, which is not how we are going to use it now.

The worst one is RiceHigh's, which is second hand and we only have his interpretation of something else.

Reading the tests it's clear that there's much more to lenses than the overall figures, as I said in my own review of the 18-135mm. The bald test results do not tell the whole story about any lens.

The tests also restrict themselves to examination of the MTF50 figures and we really need the MTF20 graphs as well.

There's a lot of information on the web, much of it flawed in one way or another, and certainly having its influence on buyers. There's no answer to it really.

What I tried to point out is that the sigma and tamron are both offering lenses with simalar focal length with better or same IQ, yet being a pentax user we have to pay more than 30% more to get the same Tokina lens.

Plus SMC. And are the others weather-sealed, and do they have silent in-lens focussing?

G