All Forum Comments
Hence I talked of characteristics, I feel the 16-50 was designed that way, (Obviously I cannot possibly know this!) quite a few lenses, however are made to be a bit soft wide open in the corners as it helps give the magic pixie dust Portrait effect but stopped down it goes away. It's a characteristic not a flaw, being a landscaper however I do not want lenses with that characteristic, I don't want to be cropping out corners because they are softish, if someone is readying to drop a not inconsiderable sum on one of these lenses I just think they should be informed of this. The two I had were not as good as either of my 17-70's in the corners at any aperture but I tend to live between F8-11 and I think the 16-50 being an F2.8 lens, is at it's best at F5.6-8 so I'd not see much of that in my line of photography but if you need it then obviously it's a lot better at F2.8 than the 16-45 or the 17-70!
Comment by jules posted on 16-45 to 16-50 at 07/10/2014 - 11:08
And no Ricoh on the back...
Comment by jules posted on Tried a K-S1 today... at 07/10/2014 - 09:31
I too loved my 50-135 but just can't justify too many lenses and I'm probably going to have to let it go!
I have had two 16-50mm and two 17-70mm, both of the 17-70's have proved better for my usage though I much prefer the handling and general packaging of the 16-50mm, optically I have found the 16-50 to be soft pretty much everywhere at F2.8 and regarded it as an F4 lens in the end, maybe I got two sub par ones? The range of the 17-70 is very useful and it has a sharpness characteristic that suits my kind of photography (Landscape) where it is pretty evenly sharp right across the board. However if you are into more than Travel and Landscape photography and are likely to put portraiture into your remit then I would recommend the 16-50mm, as it does have a little sprinkling of the Pixie dust here (Sharp centre, soft corners). Whereas the 17-70 is a solid all-rounder the 16-50 is a good people lens, dovetails beautifully with the 50-135, no handling quirks, you get exactly what you get with the 50-135, great combination...
I have had two 16-50mm and two 17-70mm, both of the 17-70's have proved better for my usage though I much prefer the handling and general packaging of the 16-50mm, optically I have found the 16-50 to be soft pretty much everywhere at F2.8 and regarded it as an F4 lens in the end, maybe I got two sub par ones? The range of the 17-70 is very useful and it has a sharpness characteristic that suits my kind of photography (Landscape) where it is pretty evenly sharp right across the board. However if you are into more than Travel and Landscape photography and are likely to put portraiture into your remit then I would recommend the 16-50mm, as it does have a little sprinkling of the Pixie dust here (Sharp centre, soft corners). Whereas the 17-70 is a solid all-rounder the 16-50 is a good people lens, dovetails beautifully with the 50-135, no handling quirks, you get exactly what you get with the 50-135, great combination...
Comment by jules posted on 16-45 to 16-50 at 07/10/2014 - 09:28
Crackin and very reassuring!
Comment by jules posted on Ephotozine review of the 60-250mm at 06/10/2014 - 12:46
Mike-P wrote:
Strangely enough I was going through my paperwork last week and found the original receipt for my 60-250mm dated 4 years ago.
I'm pretty sure it's my oldest surviving lens, all the rest from then were sold years ago,
Well ya keep it for a reason Mike!Strangely enough I was going through my paperwork last week and found the original receipt for my 60-250mm dated 4 years ago.
I'm pretty sure it's my oldest surviving lens, all the rest from then were sold years ago,
Your enthusiasm for it is part of the reason for me giving it another try...
You and MJSPHOTO1956, another Michael!
Comment by jules posted on Ephotozine review of the 60-250mm at 06/10/2014 - 12:32
Very imformative peter!
In the film era I only had an ME Super, it was my first SLR (save for a nightmare of a Zenith!:shock, when I moved on to Nikon kidding myself they would be better I spent all of that time missing the Pentax, silly me!
In the film era I only had an ME Super, it was my first SLR (save for a nightmare of a Zenith!:shock, when I moved on to Nikon kidding myself they would be better I spent all of that time missing the Pentax, silly me!
Comment by jules posted on My PENTAXES on You Tube at 06/10/2014 - 11:20
Just bit the bullet and ordered one! I probably won't be using my 50-135mm anymore I'd guess and I'll probably add the 1.4 AW convertor and pass on the 300 too now. It just makes sense for me to have this instead given the amont of long lens stuff I actually do, the 300 would just sit about for most of the year so it's just not practical, hoping this one is a bit better than the one I bought last time, if it is, I'll be a happy bunny!
Comment by jules posted on Ephotozine review of the 60-250mm at 06/10/2014 - 11:16
Comment by jules posted on Complimentary review of the K50 at 06/10/2014 - 10:48
Guy owns his own shop and he says he can pretty much have what he wants, he likes the K50...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJkAIHFVSvQ
Nice, makes a change...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJkAIHFVSvQ
Nice, makes a change...
Comment by jules posted on Complimentary review of the K50 at 02/10/2014 - 17:03
Agreed John, the K-S1/Q-S1 being part of the "innovation" line as opposed to the "core" line are I think evidence of this, not necessarily European/U.S oriented products but inclined towards growth of the brand, if they can grow it just a little we enthusiasts will get all the toys we want too?
Comment by jules posted on Tried a K-S1 today... at 02/10/2014 - 10:38
