Fun with DA*16-50 [for as long as it last]

[Knorp]

Seems my copy is doing not too bad at the extremes.
Anything in the middle - hmmm not so sure

But it's a fun lens for sure and I love the way it produces wonderful close-ups.
Here are a few from Saturday morning in the park.

below: in-camera jpg colour rendering

below: c1 pef colour rendering

Kind regards.

 

[benroy]

Knorp: That's really good stuff... would have been even nicer if you had been able to list the focal lengths employed with these images. I have a 16-50 coming...I hope it works as well as what I see here...(there's all those negative comments/returned items, etc.)

Roy Benson

 

[Knorp]

Knorp: That's really good stuff... would have been even nicer if you had been able to list the focal lengths employed with these images. I have a 16-50 coming...I hope it works as well as what I see here...(there's all those negative comments/returned items, etc.)

Roy Benson

Roy,

really the focal length is in the EXIF !
But here you go: first two at 50mm and the last four at 16mm.
As I said in my copy the extremes 16 and 50 are fine.

Well mechanical failures are just very unfortunate, but optical defects or design shortcomings is something quite different.
Keep my fingers crossed for you.

Kind regards.

 

[benroy]

Good morning, Bart. I picked up a 16-50 yesterday and posted some sample pics and observations on the "fun with K-5" thread...should have gone here...sorry.

Roy Benson

 

[benroy]

Re: 16-50 at wide angle focal lengths: years ago I made a good living off of the Leica and Zeiss 21s (Super Angulons) and the Super-Wide...this lens won't cut it for the professional requiring edge to edge sharpness, straight lines...but for an old fart like myself, just wandering around the neighborhood...it's OK. Here's a set taken from my driveway...16-20-28-35...
all at about f/8 @ 400. Full image, minimal sharpening via Photoshop and no correcting of distortion at the edges....in other words, just like everything else that I shoot on the Dawn Patrol.

Roy Benson

 

[jonoslack]

But here you go: first two at 50mm and the last four at 16mm.
As I said in my copy the extremes 16 and 50 are fine.

Lovely shots Bart and Roy.
That's what I found - repeatedly (i've actually had 5 copies of this lens). Just when you think it's safe to go outside it really screws up on you again

On the other hand, the humble 18-135 seems to me to be a much better lens from practical terms - i.e. it works at the focal lengths one tends to use it for. In fact, at 24mm (35 equivalent) and by f5.6 it seems to me to be as good as the fuji lens (go figure).

all the best

 

[benroy]

Here's where the wide focal lengths really shine...close up...I had better luck with the 16-50 on these pics than I did with the 31FA and 35 macro...probably just an unskilled photographer, but it does give one pause to consider...curvature of field vs flat field?

Roy Benson

 

[Knorp]

Re: 16-50 at wide angle focal lengths: years ago I made a good living off of the Leica and Zeiss 21s (Super Angulons) and the Super-Wide...this lens won't cut it for the professional requiring edge to edge sharpness, straight lines...but for an old fart like myself, just wandering around the neighborhood...it's OK. Here's a set taken from my driveway...16-20-28-35...
all at about f/8 @ 400. Full image, minimal sharpening via Photoshop and no correcting of distortion at the edges....in other words, just like everything else that I shoot on the Dawn Patrol.

Roy Benson

Nothing wrong with that Dawn Patrol, Roy.
I agree the DA*16-50 is not a great lens and yes, perhaps, it's not as versatile as the 18-135, but if you stop looking in corners it's a nice walk-around lens IMO.
Well I am a not-so-old fart, but nevertheless I really like the DA*16-50.

Kind regards.

 

[Knorp]

Here's where the wide focal lengths really shine...close up...I had better luck with the 16-50 on these pics than I did with the 31FA and 35 macro...probably just an unskilled photographer, but it does give one pause to consider...curvature of field vs flat field?

Roy Benson

Roy, these samples look really good.
Another thing to take in consideration is the DOF.
Shooting fast lenses wide open, speaking 50/0.95 here, could be quite a challenge.
And because of the narrow DOF, it's likely you perceive such a picture as unsharp.
So have another go with your 35 macro, I'm sure you'll get the hang of it.

All the very best.

 

[Knorp]

That's what I found - repeatedly (i've actually had 5 copies of this lens). Just when you think it's safe to go outside it really screws up on you again

5 copies ? You're just sooooo picky ....
:deadhorse:

Seriously, I'm sorry about your misfortune with this lens, Jono.
Nobody could say you didn't give it a fair change, though.

All the very best.

 

[benroy]

Out with the 16-50 in the rain-soaked garden:

Roy Benson

 

[jonoslack]

5 copies ? You're just sooooo picky ....
:deadhorse:

Seriously, I'm sorry about your misfortune with this lens, Jono.
Nobody could say you didn't give it a fair change, though.

All the very best.

Yea, well
1 with the K7 last summer (whole lot went back)

2 in the autumn - neither any good

1 about 6 weeks ago - fab but the motor went

number 5 - no good

bleay

 

[raist3d]

(Looks at samples)
(Looks at Jono's comments)
(Looks at samples)
(Looks at Jono's comments)

Jono, what are you doing to your copies? *

hehe

- Raist

*- it was already explained that your good luck with the Sigmas had to be transferred in bad luck somewhere else… poor 16-50….

 

[jonoslack]

Here's where the wide focal lengths really shine...close up...I had better luck with the 16-50 on these pics than I did with the 31FA and 35 macro...probably just an unskilled photographer, but it does give one pause to consider...curvature of field vs flat field?

Roy Benson

Those are lovely Roy. I think you've hit the nail on the head - curvature of field is a real issue - of course, it sometimes comes out in one's favour (at least if it's concave).

Ricardo - :ROTFL:

Each of mine were okay lots of the time, but seemed to fall down badly in the middle of the range (between 20 and 25mm actual) with wierd lop sided unsharp areas, which didn't improve at smaller apertures.

The 18-135 isn't as good a lens generally (how should it be), but it's excellent at the wider end (18-25) especially if you stop down a bit. More to the point it's consistent, I know that it's soft at the edges at 135mm, and take that into account.

I'd really like to try again, but it's such a mission, and Warehouseexpress are getting a bit hacked off with me taking them back!

all the best

 

[Knorp]

Well my copy still lasts ...

Thanks for viewing.

 

[benroy]

Bart: I love tree shots...your picture sure fills the bill. My 16-50 hasn't been a disappointment either...yet...here are some examples:

Roy Benson

 

[jonoslack]

Could I really have been unlucky 5 TIMES (or did they just sell me the same lens over and over again!).
oke::deadhorse::ROTFL::wtf:

 

[Knorp]

Could I really have been unlucky 5 TIMES (or did they just sell me the same lens over and over again!).
oke::deadhorse::ROTFL::wtf:

Jono, I really don't think so because I do believe that this lens has its flaws.
Perhaps my expectations aren't just that high, one reason why I'm avoiding brick walls

Kind regards.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, I really don't think so because I do believe that this lens has its flaws.
Perhaps my expectations aren't just that high, one reason why I'm avoiding brick walls

Kind regards.

Oh Bart
I never reject a lens just on brick walls, and my last 16-50 did well on the brick wall test (much better than the 18-135). But it let me down badly on foliage at around 35mm and f5.6 - that's not controversial ground, it really should work there. A series of shots taken at about 10 metres, which were sharp in the middle and impossibly soft half way to the edge (on the same focal plane).

 

[benroy]

I took the 16-50 to the train station and shot around the locomotive, caboose, and dining cars...Not shooting for record, but for design and color, so I'll admit that edges may be soft... but watch those yellow handle bars.

Roy Benson