WTB DA* 16-50mm

For me only their Limited lenses really worth what we are paying for. It is very expensive but I just can not resist geting them. They are just wonderful.

Even canon users buy these the FA limted lenses to use on their FF body that says it all.

m42geo wrote: I read somewhere on a japanese forum saying that tokina signed a deal with pentax that tokina would not offer their own branded lenes to Pentax users in return pentax supply them with the SMC coating for the tonkina lenses.

Personally have not herd about this! Where did you read this? Does can anyone clarify this?

It seems opinion is well and truly divided on the 16-50.Perhaps I should just persist with the 18-55 WR kit lens for now -I took some shots in the Yorkshire Dales at the weekend and I can't believe the performance to price ratio - these are available for peanuts. Seems Pentax have a range of ultra cheap but highly adequate lenses(18-55 WR 50-200 WR 35mm 2.4 & both 55-300mm- some of the ltds seem to be on the slide price wise as well) and at the other end some gear that is a little overblown price wise. At £450 I would snap up the 16-50 but £600+ is a bit scary when taking opinions into account.

If the Limited lenses were weather sealed like the DA* lenses I think Pentax would really have something very very special.

I'm not sure you have interpreted the data correctly.

People who have owned the 16-50 tend to praise it more than people who haven't. Surely real experience is more important than hearsay.

G

Seems you know what I was trying to point out now, the 16-50 is not a bad lens at all. Just no way you can comapre with the 50-135. £600 is alot of money for me. Pentax sometimes do overprice their products quite a bit. On the other hand their kit lens are such a bargain, much better than what canon and nikon are offering.

Taking up what JR said above, the 12-24 now costs less in real terms than it did five years ago - before the price increases.

G

Canon 17/55...£799.00 plus £35.00 for the hood!...Nikon 17/55 £1099.00 plus £30 for the hood!...Pentax lenses aren't expensive,to me in these days of must have the new model camera,everyone seems to forget that it's the glass that produces the goods!.Lenses will long outlast the cameras,so it's worth the outlay of buying the best you can afford!.

My sentiments exactly and at least you get the hood and case with Pentax

John

Have you owned a 16-50?

If not, I don't understand why you think you know anything about it. It's a much better lens than you think it is.

G

George I think you make a valid point at least in terms of real world experience being important.

I'm assuming anybody commenting on the lens in the first person has some experience of it. It is a little disconcerting to spend £600+ without being sure.. It seems the 50-135 gets almost universal praise- so there is a perceived difference somewhere.

I must confess I didnt know the prices of the Nikon and Canon equivalent. There is no way I can ever spend £1000 on a lens. The Pentax looks good value in this context. I think I will wait and see if the price sneaks back down a bit or maybe a used one will surface on here (there is one on SRS but it is still quite expensive- or perhaps I am a little on the tight side:wink

No, I just borrowed my friend's. I done many test shots. Result is the IQ is they have the same IQ at F2.8, then my sigma performs better at f4-11. That is at the wide end. At 35 and 50mm the sigma performs the pentax at 2.8. But I have to say when both shoot at 2.8 the image produced by the pentax is brighter at the same shutter speed setting. That suggest the pentax might have a larger apeture then my sigma.

By the way my friend's Penatx DA*16-50 also had weather sealing problem under heavy rain.

Of course I never use my sigma in heavy rain condition so I can compare the weather sealing between the two.

Futhermore I tried the tamron 17-50 although on a Nikon d300 body but it perfroms way better than my sigma and the pentax.

Thanks

This is true, but there is no harm pointing out when Pentax offers the weaker deal in terms of price/performance. I'm sure the 16-50mm is excellent and offers more than the sharpness measurements seem to indicate (I notice it renders starbursts rather nicely!) And if you need weather sealing the discussion is over - you need the 16-50. But I have seen a few threads from people who have switched to the Tamron because of SDM issues, and have been pleasantly surprised, so they are not speaking from ignorance. I chose the 16-45mm initially because Pete Bargh favoured the lens in a head to head with the 16-50. link Since then I have gone for the Tamron and yes it is cuttingly sharp and (I feel) sturdier than the 16-45.

M42geo,

Pentax describes its products as "weather-resistant", not storm-proof, and says you can use the lenses in "drizzle or mist".

"Heavy rain conditions" are beyond the spec., and if you have had trouble in such conditions then the fault lies with you.

As for doing "many test shots", this just confirms what I think about your approach. You are not judging the lens by the pictures it takes in normal use, but by criteria like performance in the corners wide-open, which is really of very little significance in the real world.

The first test you quoted concludes by mentioning "weak border performance" and "pronounced lateral CAs", and then finishes by saying:

"On the other hand it is really very sharp and contrasty at medium aperture settings (f5.6 - f8 ) and many users may actually forgive the border problems at f/2.8 because you either stop down for conventional photography or rely on the (very sharp) center for shallow depth-of-field situations (e.g. portraits) anyway. The build quality of the lens is also a step up from the consumer grade Pentax lenses and the silent (although not overly speedy) SDM is an extra bonus on top. The pricing of the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 is fair relative to its performance and build quality."

So in normal use it's very good, and its price is fair. Not quite what you were suggesting.

G

Ok George.

I seen many videos on youtube shows how water proof the pentax body and DA* lens are so I though I give it a go. And it failed after 30 mins. So I do not see pentax products as WR anymore. Now I will just take care of my gears better.

Going back to the IQ, yes the pentax is a good lens in most field conditions and if you think the price is fair then maybe we should put it this way the Tamron offer is a bargain.

Please let me point out, I do not mean to piss anyone off who own a DA*16-50 and I just want to point out to Japers45 that there are better offers out there in term of Price/Performance ratio.

At least now I got him to think again before spending £600+ for it while he might able to spend it the way I did, £150 for the 2nd hand sigma 18-50 and then add a 2nd hand sigma 10-20mm for around £200, Still £250 left, god knows where to spend. maybe a good tripod + a 35mm F2.4

you see I done alot with my £600 when I bought all these 2 years ago.