I'll take an f8 shot today and upload crops of the upper corners. You tell me. My copy looks no better or worse than photozone's test samples BTW. Their samples are quite soft in portrait. So is dpreviews. My barrel probably has a 1/8-1/4" of wobble to the left and right. vertically it feels tighter.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM, John Coyle <jco...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Zos, you must have either two bad samples or very high standards! The 16-45 > I got from another > PDML-er (in, I think, 2007) was well used but still gives great images. I > used it extensively on a > number of overseas trips, and most of the images I got from it were sharp > corner to corner: those > that were not are probably due to being taken from a moving bus or from the > hip... > There is no barrel wobble either, so it might pay to have it tightened up > after all. > > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > > > -----Original Message----- > From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Zos Xavius > Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 11:20 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: 16-50/2.8 (was Re: saved someone from Nigerian Paypal scam?) > > I have the 16-45, but the wobbly barrel is killing my corners randomly. In > portrait the upper half > tends to get soft. I have two copies of this lens. The one I'm using now is > very good when it is > sharp, but inconsistent. I would pay to have one of them tightened, but I'm > afraid that it will just > get loose again rather quickly. I think the build quality is simply awful. > Great glass inside though > unfortunately. I tend to use it stopped down to f9-f11, but at f7.1 and lower > the corners get pretty > sad looking, so only good for closeups or when DOF is in play. Its pushing me > to bite the bullet and > start saving for a 16-50, though I don't know if I will really get any better > IQ from that at the > 16mm mark to be honest. I really wish pentax had some better wide-normal > zooms at a reasonable > price. The > 17-70 doesn't do it for me. > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM, steve harley <p...@paper-ape.com> wrote: >> on 2013-07-23 13:44 Aahz Maruch wrote >> >>> Steve, the other advantage of the 16-50, of course, is that you're >>> not having to switch lenses. >> >> >> yes, for a couple of years a 16-45mm was my most-used lens >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
