All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on WTB DA* 16-50mm at 21/06/2011 - 21:12
greynolds999 wrote:
I know perfectly well what I said and I said what I meant and meant what I said.
If you look up the page you will see that Pentaxophile has kindly pointed out what you meant, and I am now enlightened.I know perfectly well what I said and I said what I meant and meant what I said.
He is much better at reading minds than I am. I tend to look for meaning in the words, and therefore on occasion come unstuck.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another pointless thread at 21/06/2011 - 21:03
parigby wrote:
I have on order the 43mm Limited, again because with a past Nikon kit l did take a lot of images in the 60mm area, and for me it works.
regards ........... philip
When this lens first came out, it was tested against a Summicron and the then current Nikon 50mm 1:1.4, and came out on top.I have on order the 43mm Limited, again because with a past Nikon kit l did take a lot of images in the 60mm area, and for me it works.
regards ........... philip
So you needn't feel you are stepping down.
It'll be very interesting to hear what you think of it. Please report back.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Hi from Oxfordshire at 21/06/2011 - 20:43
Peter Elgar wrote:
-- there is the sewage works in Nag's Head Lane !
The Nag's Head is not your local, I trust.-- there is the sewage works in Nag's Head Lane !
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Trying 'RAW' -- some queries. at 21/06/2011 - 20:16
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
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
Comment by George Lazarette posted on WTB DA* 16-50mm at 21/06/2011 - 20:03
Mike-P wrote:
You mean: "I'm a photographer, take your clothes off" didn't work with you either?QuestionableCarrot wrote:
Mike I am sorry but I am going to have to correct you (its the birder in me) but thats actually a Chaffinch.
I was never very good with the birds Mike I am sorry but I am going to have to correct you (its the birder in me) but thats actually a Chaffinch.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Thanks for helping me make the choice easy folks... at 21/06/2011 - 19:19
Er, the sun set on the Empire in the early 60s. The only colonies left are still there because the inhabitants fear what will happen if the Union flag is ever lowered.
But I know what you mean. And fear not about giving offence. There are too many professional offence-takers, and they belong in the same dank dungeon as the other people in your list.
G
But I know what you mean. And fear not about giving offence. There are too many professional offence-takers, and they belong in the same dank dungeon as the other people in your list.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another pointless thread at 21/06/2011 - 19:17
m42geo wrote:
Have you owned a 16-50?japers45 wrote:
At £450 I would snap up the 16-50 but £600+ is a bit scary when taking opinions into account.
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.At £450 I would snap up the 16-50 but £600+ is a bit scary when taking opinions into account.
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
Comment by George Lazarette posted on WTB DA* 16-50mm at 21/06/2011 - 19:07
Pentaxophile wrote:
OK. Point taken.George Lazarette wrote:
Your comment implied that because Northern Ireland is not part of GB (which is too obvious to mention), a person from NI should not be considered British.
I suspect he meant something similar to the Andy Murray phenomenon... when he loses, the English are soppused to refer to him as a Scottish tennis player implying he has nothing to do with us. When he wins, he's referred to as British, so we can embrace him as a national hero! Load of nonsense really but a bit of fun.Your comment implied that because Northern Ireland is not part of GB (which is too obvious to mention), a person from NI should not be considered British.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another pointless thread at 21/06/2011 - 18:41
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
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on WTB DA* 16-50mm at 21/06/2011 - 18:35
Ok George.
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.
I just wanted to ensure that Jasper got the view of real users in real situations, and that view, generally, is that the 16-50 is a considerably better lens than reviews suggest.
Incidentally, I wrote off my 16-50 by dropping it from a great height. I would not have replaced it with another lens otherwise.
G