16-50 f2.8 DA*

chiefsilverback

6

28 Aug 2008 - 2:14 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Ok, who has this lens or at least a link to a good review?

If you own it, how do you rate it?

pulsar69 (e2 Member)

9

7 Apr 2009 - 10:56 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I too own this lens and have used it for a year now , it is a fantastically sharp and clear lens , the only reservation I have with it is the focussing , it can be a little hit and miss especially when used the sonic motor , have sent mine back to be calibrated once allready and still it is only about 85 percent ...

alfpics

11

9 Apr 2009 - 2:44 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

AP rated it their 'zoom lens of the year' award recently! (Feb 14th 2009)
Andy

GSPlemper

4

5 May 2009 - 6:31 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I recently bought the 16-50 DA* and the 50-135DA*. I must admit it was with great trepidation as I have read some awful reviews (although the AP award and reading of their constant f2.8 prompted my interest).

Before getting the zooms I had the 21, 35 macro and 50 1.4 FA along with the 16-55mm Mk 11 and as some of my work was in low light situations I decided I needed a high quality fast zoom.

I ordered the equipment from SRS microsystems and they arrived the next day. I have always been sceptical about zooms producing the equivalent of prime lenses but in this case I have been absolutely stunned by the quality of both optics. I cannot say much about edge sharpness as most of my work involves people but to my eye the images from the 16-50 are outstanding, even at f2.8. I certainly could see a difference in images between the 16-55 mkII and these lenses. The idea of having dust and weather sealing is very attractive although this aspect has been not been tested.

People have questioned the focus capabilities. All I can say it that I have never experienced any problems and the quietness of the lens focus is quite eerie. I say this with a reasonable amount of experience as I have had particular problems with the primes, especially the 1.4. When I say problems I am sure these were down to my own poor technique rather than the quality of the lenses and I remember back 30 years ago when I would return home from the Woolwich Tramshed only to find a number of images would be out of focus. As those lenses were all manual I could not blame the lenses and accepted that the poor focus was down the cameraman and of course, the beer. I am certain that with today's Pentax equipment missed shots due to focus and camera shake would almost be absent, no matter how much beer I had drunk.

I sometimes think that we are becoming lazy and amost seem to think that the camera has a duty to make up for our own lack of technique. It's OK that is my Victor Meldrew impersonation over with.