HD Pentax DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED PLM AW Experiences

[@mitchkeller]

Thanks for giving us this advance look at this new lens, Mike!

[@mikemuizebelt]

My pleasure Mitch!

[@woconomi]

Mooie review Mike! Prachtige foto's die het potentieel van die lens mooi weergeven!!

[@mikemuizebelt]

Dank je man! Het is dan ook een droom combinatie. Voordat ik het door had was ik bijna een kwartier verder zag ik later.... :-)

[@gbchinchin]

Saw your photo by this lens on the booth of Pentax in Tokyo Yodobashi Camera shop.

[@williabruggeman]

Hello Mike, bij deze lens kan je de AF wijzigen op de lens, moet je dan ook de AF wijzigen op de camera? dank bij voorbaat William

[@jamesvgriepenburg9460]

The lens+camera looks very good. As a Pentax advisor per chance was a K-3III used for the excellent video? If not why not?

[@Ropertmagbanua]

Thanks for the some ideas,,, I got my Pentax K70 last week, I think this is good for a beginner like me to improve.

[@leehaze1]

Thanks Mike. nice video.

[@paweszkup647]

Hi Mike, can you, after several weeks with this lens say how it works against strong light e.g. sun in a frame? The previous version of 16-50 was able to catch bad flares quite easily. Is this lens improved in that area?

[@tahersafari3104]

Love it, it’s really a masterpiece of glass…

[@mikemuizebelt]

I have that feeling as well :-)

[@wkunique]

how nice to hear and see a photographer and not some photoshop..

[@Red_dead_I_I]

It's not as sharp as i expected with my old pentax k3 original... i bought the lens recently and i only had a few test shots, best results i saw where in between f/7 - f/11 (focus to infinity).. not saying i am not happy with it... but i believe that this lens was created for the more recent k3 models and the k1, specially for the k3 mark iii

[@kenspo]

Nice one buddy! :)

[@mikemuizebelt]

Thanks my friend! Pentax did goooooood with this one :-)

[@FreedomToRoam86]

This is a bad video, with very many bad photos, because it will get me in bad trouble lusting after this lens for my K3-III. LOL! Thanks for such a good review of this lens, even if I must figure out how to get it. I really like how you discussed the pics you took, not boring specifications and charts

[@pafa7179]

It seems very expensive for an aspc lens.

[@mikemuizebelt]

I agree it's not priced to please most of us, but as you may see from similar offerings of other manufacturers, these are all in the same ballpark.

[@xmeda]

Mike, if you are doing review of F2.8 lens it obviously should be about the F2.8 performance mainly. Nobody buys very expensive F2.8 lens to shoot rocks with F10 or 10s shutter. Even DA18-55/3.5-5.6 can do that and provide good results. That man with fish portrait shot at F7.1.. again. And finally one portrait shot taken with F2.8..but only the central spot shown. Later that guy on beach shot and cropped.. seriously? If you are talking about autofocus, you shoud do some real AF-C F2.8@50mm test of this lens and K3m3 combo face/eyes tracking ability. I'm also interested about counterlight behavior, aberations, purple fringing etc. And especially if you can compare the lens with for example mighty Sigma 17-50/2.8 and do 1:1 comparison showing samples at 100%. Unprocessed raw of course. Not edited images after whole lot of lens corrections.

[@andyyang7053]

Mike, I am interested to see some image comparison between the new 16-50 and the original 16-50. I own the original one, images are sharp between F8 and F16, anything below F8 are very soft looking images. I cannot make up my mind if I should upgrade my original lens.

[@mikemuizebelt]

Dear Michal Nicak, I'm so happy that you respond to my video (and website article ) as well. I've seen you trolling the release wherever you can. Perhaps you can clarify what your issue is? Let me explain you a little bit about photography; Aperture control on lenses are there to give the photographer creative control about their images. You might choose a blurry background or the opposite a front to back sharpness. I've used this lens as I would do in real world situations; I asses the circumstances and choose the best settings for that particular photo. In the 20-odd examples you will see that I've used f2.8 in the portrait of Remco, but also smaller apertures for my landscapes. I have the strong feeling that you should spend your time on a few photography lessons so you might better understand the creative brain of a photographer. I wish you all the best.

[@mikemuizebelt]

@@andyyang7053 Hi Andy. I believe there are some examples on Pentax's corporate site that show (big) differences. I sold my 16-50 years ago when I went full-frame so could not compare them myself.

[@awajiislander3843]

@@andyyang7053 Here is the Pentax's corporate page that compares with the original 16-50. www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/star_lens/special/sp_da16-50/

[@Needacreate]

Oh dear, another believer in the myth, or half-truth at best, that an F2.8 lens should be mainly enjoyed at F2.8, and hence primarily tested at that aperture. As Mike points out, lenses have an aperture range to give you options as a photographer who knows how aperture affects DOF and composition, not to mention exposure. Naturally, if I pony up the money for a fast-aperture lens, I want to know if wide-open is useable when I need it. But I also want to know where the lens reaches its peak - usually on stopping down a bit - and over what aperture range that lens sustains critical or at least decent sharpness before diffraction takes its toll. BTW, the DA18-55 kitzoom may reach a decent sharpness level at medium apertures, but those rocks you're sneering at (and so much else) will look significantly better shot with a lens of the new DA*'s calibre, particularly in the corners. Fact.

[@jacovanlith5082]

Praat Dutch svpper favore.