All zoom lenses are a compromise between quality and convenience. When
you use them at the extremities- widest angle and largest aperture
lenses such as the 16-50 are not at their best.
I recently bought a second hand DA 14mm f2.8 prime to complement my DA
21mm Limited prime to cover these focal lengths.
Philip Northeast
www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au
On 26/07/13 9:33 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
LOL! It might not be that much, but it is noticable...
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
