That's why I was suggesting that if 16 is important to Zos (which it seems to be if he's picky over 16 vs 17 -- "the 1mm makes a big difference"), he might prefer looking for something where that's the middle of the range. Or yeah, go for prime!
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013, Philip Northeast wrote: > > 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. -- 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.
