All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on not impresed at 25/03/2015 - 16:36
stu62 wrote:
there is a lot of mixed reviews on the 16/50 i have just looked on dpreview and one person as said its a heap of junk anothere has said its not the best and the othere have said it is ok
where as the 16/85 is the total opposite they rave sbout it
but then the 16/50 is 7year old and the 16/85 is what abot 5 /6 month old not really been out long enough to find the problems yet
regards stu
You seem to have found some very one-sided reviews. I know that early 16-50s had some AF motor problems, but the great majority of reports I have read were complimentary about the image quality.there is a lot of mixed reviews on the 16/50 i have just looked on dpreview and one person as said its a heap of junk anothere has said its not the best and the othere have said it is ok
where as the 16/85 is the total opposite they rave sbout it
but then the 16/50 is 7year old and the 16/85 is what abot 5 /6 month old not really been out long enough to find the problems yet
regards stu
I had one (before I dropped it), and could scarcely tell the difference between pictures taken with it and pictures taken with Limited lenses.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 25/03/2015 - 15:52
Gwyn wrote:
OT good to see you pop up again George
Nice to see you, too!Mike-P wrote:
Sell (or PX) what you have and buy a 16-50mm, 50-135mm, 60-250mm
Sorted.
+1Sell (or PX) what you have and buy a 16-50mm, 50-135mm, 60-250mm
Sorted.
OT good to see you pop up again George
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Lens Upgrade Choices at 25/03/2015 - 14:27
If you are happy, why change? The manual lenses are better made, will last longer, and are nicer to handle. I love 'em.
And I especially like the 75-150. I got some cracking pictures with it on slide film.
G
And I especially like the 75-150. I got some cracking pictures with it on slide film.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Old vs New at 25/03/2015 - 14:24
Pentaxophile wrote:
A thorough user review and comparison (with sample images) with the 16-50/18-135 here
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.A thorough user review and comparison (with sample images) with the 16-50/18-135 here
"So as it is, at full retail, I'd recommend the 16-85 (unless you need the f/2.8 and beefier weather resistance) and if you can get the DA* for a good deal used for less than the 16-85 (as it's too new to have any used samples available), then I'd go for the DA*."
At the moment, a second-hand 16-50 at a good price looks as though it may be the right choice. I think a glass of Bowmore is required to assist the mulling process.
Cheers.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 25/03/2015 - 14:21
K10D wrote:
...... It's a fact that shooting film slows down the whole process of capturing images. It does make you think more about the shot and in my case, even what to shoot. I find it most rewarding.
Best regards
Absolutely right. And in the days of film, a manual camera always made you think more about composition than an automatic. It's why Photo schools insisted on using the all-manual K1000 for so long....... It's a fact that shooting film slows down the whole process of capturing images. It does make you think more about the shot and in my case, even what to shoot. I find it most rewarding.
Best regards
I think I will switch my bodies to manual everything for a while, and see my photos improve.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on LX vs ME super vs KX vs K2 at 25/03/2015 - 13:32
50mpCMOS wrote:
The aperture of the Pentax 16-50 is considerably better,
The updated optics of the Pentax 16-85 are better, except at the widest most range. The reliability of the newer version is simply beyond compare. The WR of the newer version is also a plus
Has it been around long enough to comment on the reliability? In what way are the optics better? Both have WR.The aperture of the Pentax 16-50 is considerably better,
The updated optics of the Pentax 16-85 are better, except at the widest most range. The reliability of the newer version is simply beyond compare. The WR of the newer version is also a plus
Cheers
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 25/03/2015 - 12:59
Thanks. It's clearly a good lens. The question is, does it produce better images than the 16-50? The increased range is of course a plus, but for me the variable (and slower) aperture cancel that advantage out. So it's really down to image quality, and the 16-50 I used to own was close to the Limiteds in that respect. I don't want to take a step backwards.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 25/03/2015 - 12:57
Mike-P wrote:
Welcome back George ... a passing visit or are you staying a while ?
Well, I think I might stick around. Pentax is definitely moving forward more rapidly under Ricoh than it did under Samsung, and I will be very interested to see how things develop. Also, I hope to have a bit more time on my hands this year.George Lazarette wrote:
Obviously there is no need to point out that one has a longer range!
Thanks
G
That's me out then. Obviously there is no need to point out that one has a longer range!
Thanks
G
Welcome back George ... a passing visit or are you staying a while ?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 25/03/2015 - 12:38
Has anybody owned or used both? Or seen a comparison review?
I am thinking of buying one or the other. Obviously there is no need to point out that one has a longer range!
Thanks
G
I am thinking of buying one or the other. Obviously there is no need to point out that one has a longer range!
Thanks
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 25/03/2015 - 11:56
[quote:3496ace15f="RobL"]
Yes, interesting to see the lens manufacturers walking away from Pentax, but unfortunately quite understandable given the size of our market.
Let 'em walk.