Havne't done any post-processing yet to get a closer look, but the 16-50's 16/2.8 vignetting was clearly visible on casual inspection (i.e. I wasn't looking for it and was mildly surprised to see it) on a photo with lots of sky, so I'd guess it closer to 0.5-1 EV. That seems large enough for concern for at least some people and worth mentioning.
Happy to send you the DNG if you want to look for yourself. ;-) On Thu, Jul 25, 2013, Bruce Walker wrote: > > Given the state of lens-correction data these days (eg ACR, Lightroom) > that small amount of vignetting (couple of tenths of a stop?) is a > complete non-issue. Even minor barrel distortion isn't worth worrying > about, but especially vignetting. > > Unless you just want something to whinge about. In which case, carry on ... > :-) > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Aahz Maruch <a...@pobox.com> wrote: > > FYI, given your requirement for good wide performance, don't pine too > > badly for the 16-50, I noticed a fair amount of vignetting at 16/2.8 > > > > Honestly, given how much you care about the difference between 16 and 17, > > I think you might prefer something like the Tamron 10-24 or one of the > > Sigma 10-20. Then either suck it up on swapping lenses or get a cheap > > used body for the second lens. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013, Zos Xavius wrote: > >> > >> No use in even posting samples. I think my good copy is now bad. When > >> I push the barrel up the upper half gets sharp again, so clearly the > >> wobble is hurting sharpness. I think the build quality on this lens > >> simply awful. I've tried very hard to baby this lens, but it should be > >> able to withstand a knock or two. I guess I send in my bad copy and > >> have CRIS tighten that and realign it. I hate spending anymore money > >> on this stupid lens, but the range is nice and the rendering and > >> sharpness are both superb when your copy is optically good. I dunno. I > >> mean I can spend $180 or so at CRIS and have the same issue 6 months-1 > >> year down the road. I need something between the 16-40 range and this > >> lens was a seemingly perfect fit. The 17-70 isn't great at the wide > >> end IMO and the 1mm makes a big difference. The 16-50/2.8 is just too > >> much money and I don't need the speed enough to justify spending > >> $1000. Not when I could buy a couple of limiteds for that....If this > >> lens is this fragile, its gotta be the flimsiest zoom I have ever used > >> and that's saying something. Even my el cheapo 28-80 is better built. > >> I really don't know what to do. The 2nd copy was a LN- grade from KEH. > >> It seemed ok optically at first, but seems worse now than before. I > >> liked the lens enough that I needed another copy to replace the first > >> while I decided what to do with it and didn't want it missing. My > >> 18-55 mk1 just doesn't cut it really and isn't very usable at open > >> apertures. > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > LOL! It might not be that much, but it is noticable... > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruce Walker <bruce.wal...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> 1/4" of wobble? You must have the special LensBaby co-design version. > >> >> Treasure it. :-) > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> 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 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> -bmw > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> 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. > > > > -- > > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 > > http://rule6.info/ > > <*> <*> <*> > > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > -- > -bmw > > -- > 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. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
