Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM user review
My friend Stephen loaned me his Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM lens so I could put it through its paces and compare it to my kit lens (SMCP-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL). If you don’t know already, Pentax’s DA* (”D-A-star”) line of lenses are their highest quality zooms. They feature very high quality construction, weather sealing, silent ultrasonic focus motors (SDM), and Pentax’s best SMC coatings (SP) to date. Retailing at close to $700 this lens seems like it should be a huge step up from the $99 kit lens.
This isn’t a technical review. If you want MTF and distortion charts go here. Instead, I’m just going to cover my observations during real world everyday use. Keep in mind that I do have a unique perspective here so take my opinions with an appropriate grain of salt. Here are my overall findings. Feel free to read on for a more in-depth look at how I formulated my opinions.
PROS:
- Excellent build quality
- Useful zoom range
- Silent SDM focus motor
- Weather seals
- 9 bladed aperture
CONS:
- Very soft around the edges wide open
- Distracting CAs below f/4
- Big and heavy
- Very long for a 50mm lens
- Pronounced barrel distortion at 16mm
- Expensive
CONCLUSION:
While I would normally suggest upgrading the standard kit lenses from Canikon, Pentax has done an excellent job with their SMCP-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL and this gussied up DA* lens only helps to prove that point. Had I bought this lens myself I would have sent it back after the first day and put my money to better use. This is a big, heavy and expensive lens that does not prove a significant upgrade to the kit lens in everyday use. Get and/or keep the kit lens and put your money towards a dedicated ultra-wide angle lens and/or some fast primes to compliment the kit lens (some suggestions can be found at the end of this article).
REVIEW:
Purchasing a lens for me encompasses four primary areas of concern: image quality, build quality, handling, and value. There is no standard order of importance here as all of these issues carry different weight depending on the intended application of the lens in question. In this case, the 16-50 seems ideally positioned as an upgrade to the standard kit lens. This makes it an all purpose lens that should perform equally well in all four areas while handily outperforming the kit lens (which is why I am comparing the two here).
Image Quality
I think the crop above says it all. Shoot this lens at 16mm with anything less than f/4 and the color fringing (chromatic aberrations or “CAs”) and edge softness are quite disappointing. F/8 is required to eliminate the problem altogether from wide shots. The fringing persists all the way up to 50mm but is generally less of a problem at the longer focal lengths due to the shorter depth of field at f/2.8 (CAs get lost in the bokeh). Center sharpness is pretty good wide open (f/2.8) at all focal lengths and becomes tack sharp at f/4 and above. Overall color and contrast are very good (as it is with all Pentax lenses).
My biggest issue here is that the three main advantages this lens should have over the kit lens are sharpness, speed and the wider field of view (FoV). I found myself stopping down to at least f/4 for most of my shots with this lens, only using f/2.8 in extremely low light hand-held situations and when controlling the depth of field (DoF) was critical. The extra 2mm on the wide end (16mm vs. 18mm in the kit lens) are noticeable due to the greater FoV but more notably for the exaggerated barrel distortion. This isn’t a deal breaker for me but is disappointing at this price point.
On the other hand, stopped all the way down to f/22 and opened up wide to 16mm, this lens produces some very nice results for landscape photography. Its nine bladed aperture creates awesome 18 pointed starbursts with very little flare. This is one of the areas where the higher build quality of the DA* really shines (pun intended).
That 9 bladed aperture also produces very nice bokeh even when stopped down. The image above was taken at 16mm and f/8 and exhibits very smooth blurring of the background with mostly circular out of focus highlights. This shot also illustrates the 16-50’s macro performance. It’s 0.3m (11.8″) minimum focus distance makes it pretty useful for getting in tight even if the 50mm maximum focal length doesn’t provide a tremendous amount of magnification. Keep in mind that the minimum focus distance of a lens is measured from the sensor (ie: film) plane in the camera body and not from the front of the lens. This means that at 50mm you can get up to about 3-4″ away from the subject with the front glass. This may be useful sometimes and a problem at others. Personally, I like shots like this where you get in close with the wide angle to exaggerate scale and perspective. Meanwhile, the kit lens can focus down to 0.25M (9.8″)…
Build Quality
Not much to say here. This lens is built as well or better than the best lenses from any mainstream manufacturer. One heft and you will not question its price tag. Typical to the DA* line, the 16-50 features gasketed seals to prevent dust and moisture penetration, including a seal at the lens mount to seal it to the camera body. Combined with Pentax’s weather sealing on the K10/20D bodies this makes for a very practical all-weather combination. I’m sure this is a useful upgrade but I have shot in some pretty nasty conditions with my kit lens and have not had any problems with moisture penetration. (I have to wonder if most non-professional photographers would put their cameras through the kind of abuse this level of construction suggets is possible). The zoom and focus rings are well damped and buttery smooth with nicely ribbed rubber rings. There is no slop or wiggle between the various moving parts anywhere throughout the zoom range.
Handling
For me this is one of the most conflicting areas for this lens. On one hand Pentax has included some very nice design features that make this lens a worthy step up from the kit lens. On the other hand, the sheer bulk of this lens really gets in the way. Here are a couple of the nicer design features:
The access port on the lens hood is a nice touch common to all Pentax lenses. It allows access to the control ring on rotating filters without removing the lens hood (like polarized, graduated and special effects filters). This is a very user-friendly feature that all lens makers should adopt. After all, you usually find yourself needing to use these types of filters and the lens hood at the same time anyway, right?
Another nice feature of this lens is the SDM ultrasonic focus system. This lens focuses absolutely silently. This can be a bit strange at first considering how loud the screw drive focus system is with standard lenses. It’s not noticeably faster or more accurate than the screw drive system (still hunts too much IMO) but its silent operation draws less attention to the fact that you are taking pictures (if only the extra-loud shutter wouldn’t betray us so). The focus ring can be used anytime to fine tune the focus. However, it is not directly coupled to the focus mechanism so it does not stop turning when you reach the either end of the focus range. Pentax has included an AF/MF selector switch on the lens for those times when you want full time manual control. This is a lot easier to use than the switch on the camera body and is a nice touch.
Why does Pentax make me spend $700 to get a decent center pinch lens cap?
Now for the bad news. This lens is a brick. On my kitchen scale the 16-50 weighs 20oz while the 18-55 kit lens weighs in at 8oz and my old 50mm f/1.7 is only 5 3/4oz. (BTW, the K10D body w/ battery weighs 28oz). I realize that there is a weight penalty to step up to f/2.8 in a zoom but, considering this lens’ lackluster performance at f/2.8, I really have to question the benefit here. I mean, why carry around all this glass if you’re going to be shooting at f/4 anyway?
Mounting this lens to the front of my K10D felt very awkward. The grip on the K10D is a bit shallow and hanging all that weight off the front of the camera made it very difficult to hold securely with one hand. I found myself carrying the camera by the lens and having to use two hands for most of my shots. (Adding a battery grip would help balance the camera and provide better leverage with the heel of your right hand). Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind a heavy and expensive lens if the performance and application justifies it. (Canon’s EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is one of my all time favorites). Overall this did not prove to be a very good walking around combination. I find this interesting since this sort of everyday use seems to be the main focus of lenses in this zoom range.
Another negative aspect the comparison photo in the section above illustrates is how long this lens is. The 16-50 is at its longest (5 3/8″ to the mount) at 50mm and its shortest (4″) at 16mm (as shown directly above with lens hood). The kit lens is only 3 1/8″ at its longest which is at 55mm and 18mm. As you zoom from 18mm to 55mm the kit lens starts off long then retracts to its shortest length of 2 3/4″ at 35mm then back out to 3 1/8″ at 55mm. This double action means it only has to extend half as much (percentage wise) as the 16-50 does throughout its zoom range. I point this out mainly because 50mm on a 1.5X APS-C sensor is the equivalent of 75mm on a full frame sensor and 35mm film. This puts it right in the sweet spot for close portrait photography. However, when you point this thing at people they tend to back away as if you’ve just aimed a bazooka at them. I imagine it would be fine in studio situations but for candids and street photography the kit lens (or better yet, a 50mm prime) is clearly the better choice.
Not to belabor the point too much here, but another aspect that should be considered with respect to lens size is how much space it takes up in your bag. Here you can see the 16-50 f/2.8 DA* and kit lens both suited up for travel with hoods and caps. As you can see, the 16-50 will require a pretty massive hole in your bag (4 1/8″ X 4 7/8″). If you are anything like me you have to consider very carefully what goes in your camera bag. Which brings me to my conclusion…
The advertised advantages of this lens are its wide FoV (16mm), speed (f/2.8), SDM focus motor, build quality, 9 bladed aperture, weather sealing, and sharpness. However, in actual use I don’t find any of these things in combination to be a significant enough improvement over than the kit lens as to justify the price and bulk of the 16-50 f/2.8 DA*. In fact, if this were the kit lens I would be looking to upgrade. If you have $700 burning a hole in your pocket there are a number of better choices out there.
I suggest you look at the Pentax SMCP-DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL (IF) ($670). It is a re-badge of the stellar Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX ($490) and makes a much more useful ultra-wide angle addition to the kit lens. (It is a bit frustrating that we Pentax users have to pay an extra $200 for the same lens the Canikon folks can get directly from Tokina). It is still pretty heavy (15oz) and will take up just as much room in your bag as the 16-50, but the ultra-wide angle shots you’ll get with this lens will absolutely blow you away. If speed and sharpness are what you are looking for pick up a fast prime or two like the Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 ($200) and/or the Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited ($480). If you really feel a burning need to try out a DA* lens, check out the new Pentax SMCP-DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM ($890). Its bulk is easily justified by its extra reach and speed (just beware of some nasty purple fringing in high contrast scenes).
Finally, if you are buying a new Pentax body and are looking for an upgraded alternative to the kit lens, don’t. The kit lens is one of the best values available for these cameras. If you are determined, take a look at Sigma’s 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro ($420). This was the lens I originally bought with my first K10D back in ‘07. It is not nearly as big and heavy as the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8, has almost identical image quality, and adds a very useful macro focus capability across the entire zoom range. I shot several thousand shots with it in 2007 in several parts of the world and can attest to its quality. That being said, I now know that the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens makes better pictures ;-)
Some sample photos taken with this lens during testing.
UPDATE:
A number of readers have suggested that Pentax’s $380 SMCP-DA 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL might be a better upgrade choice over the 16-50mm f/2.8 DA*. I have no experience with this lens so I did not mention it as an alternative. Reading over the photozone.de test report I can see that at only 12.9oz it is considerably lighter than the 16-50 DA*. Size wise it is slightly smaller than the 16-50 DA* with the added benefit of being at its shortest at 45mm (opposite of the 16-50). Also, it features an 8 bladed diaphragm which should result in decent bokeh and nice starbursts when stopped down. Resolution seems to be very good with distortion and vignetting similar to the 16-50 DA*. The only real noteworthy negative mentioned is heavy CAs at the edges of wide angle shots. If I can get my hands on one of these I will definitely post a similar review and find out if this lens is worthy of consideration.
After writing this review it was brought to my attention that the 16-50mm f/2.8 DA* has suffered from some quality control issues. It is entirely possible that this example is flawed. However, in researching this a bit more I still find a number of reviews pointing to similar image quality problems on lenses that are supposedly in proper working order. Potential QC problems aside, my opinion remains unchanged about this lens.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I was on the verge of purchasing this lens and your little review has made me take a second look. A friend purchased this lens and since he has had the lens has done noting but complain about it. So I think I will rethink my purchase and start looking at the SMCP DA 12-24 although another friend has the Sigma 10-20 and he speaks very highly of it. Have you tried the Sigma 10-20 yourself ?
Thanks for the excellent review on the lens
Ron
February 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Ron-
Glad you have found my review helpful! I picked up a Sigma 10-20mm back in ‘07 when I first bought my K10D. The Sigma 10-20mm is an awesome lens. It ended up spending the most time on my camera of the three lenses I had at the time (Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm & Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 DA*). Unfortunately, I did not do a very good job tagging my photos when I first started out on Flickr, so you just have to dig back through my photostream to find examples. Maybe some day I’ll have the free time to update my tags ;-)
I suggested the Pentax 12-24 here because I have read that it performs better optically than the Sigma. Also, I have found that Pentax’s SMC coatings seem to produce better results on my K10D than Sigma’s coatings do. I am planning on doing similar (if perhaps less detailed) user reviews of ALL the lenses I have owned over the past 5 or 6 years. Stay tuned!
February 14th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Nice review! I thought about this lens last year, and ended up with the DA70mm instead. I may be mis-remembering the specific issue (the CA, maybe?), but there is a ton of discussion about this lens at the dpreview pentax forum, where lots of users report getting bad copies of the lens that needed replacement.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:37 am
The obvious answer is the 16-45mm f/4. Sharp as a tack and cheap to boot, it has none of the QC issues the more expensive 16-50mm f/2.8. The differences between the two lenses isn’t close to the price difference. The only plus to the 16-50 is the weather sealing.
Last I checked, this lens cost about $275 and is leagues above the kit lens you speak of.
Get this lens and save for the DA* 50-135 f/2.8 for the real step above.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Deaner66 is right. After extensive research I bought the DA16-45 and have used it for a year. You lose weather-sealing and one stop of light compared with the DA*, but it is much lighter. And much cheaper. The IQ is excellent edge to edge so it suits landscape work. It has the strange property of extending as it gets wider. But this can actually be useful since you can get candid shots of people next to you who think you are zooming in on the distance!
No-one who has used the DA16-45 has been disappointed. There are hundreds of testimonials on Pentax Forums and other places. It is definitely a sleeper.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Hi There -
I think your friend has a bad copy of the 16-50. Mine has been flawless, once I got a working copy from Pentax. My first copy had a defective SDM motor and the lens was replaced. So far, in two months of use the lens has not been off my camera except to play with the DA35mm Limited macro.
Its a shame about the quality control issues, as it casts a very wide and negative shadow over a very sharp, contrasty lens. At this price point it was very dissapointing, If I had gotten a bad copy a second time, I would have purchased the 12-24/f4 and a prime to cover this range.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:32 am
You say you shoot using only one hand??? You’re trying to use a f/2.8 lens wide open on daylight??? I think you should get some basic photography lessons before writing this kind of reviews. You state this is your personal point of view but… come on! I always shoot using my two hands (left holds the system and focuses, right deals with the shutter and controls around), not only my DSLR but even my compact! Actually I think one of those little things would suit your needs better: lightweight, they fit in your pocket, some of them can even shoot RAW, besides having great optics and a wide zoom range.
Just some advice:
- Avoid high contrast scenes. If you can’t, try an UV filter to get rid of CA as much as possible, please. Then develop your RAW file and filter UV on any good photo editor.
- If you’re caring about sharpness on the edges perhaps you’re pointing to the wrong subject.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:22 am
@Roberzo: I’ve had basic (even advanced) photography lessons. I’m not shooting “basic” photography. That’s why I review products the way I do. Perhaps you should give shooting wide open in daylight a try sometime. Also, sometimes shooting one-handed is the only way to get the camera where you need it. Thanks for your comment and suggestions, though!
April 27th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Thank you for the candid review. I’ll be purchasing a K20D this week and there are now two kits available (one as you describe and the other with the 16-45 F4). I was seriously considering the 16-50 F2/8 with the body and gip, but after reading this and some other web posts have put me on the right path with a major purchase. The weight alone is a big negative – at least in my opinion. Thank you for the test images as well.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I think that the 16-50mm f/2.8 star lens shares optics with the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8, where the Tokina seems better constructed than the Pentax lens. Unforunately, the Tokina is not available in Pentax mount. Same with the 10-17mm fish eye zoom, and the 50-135mm f/2.8, these two lenses seem also identical from Pentax and Tokina, save for the design treatment on the outside. Personally, the Tokina lenses look better to me. Also, it’s terriffying that there had been so many faulty 16-50mm f/2.8’s from Pentax. Not sure if it has to do with the asembly in Vietnam, or just poor quality checks. I mean, you can get Japanese made lenses from other manufactures from other brands in this price range. So, it’s a bit of a head scratching for me, what is Pentax trying to achieve with this kind of quality for such a high price. I don’t have a Pentax camera, but I’ve been thinking about getting one for quite some time now. The DA star lenses looked intriguing when they came out, but after learning about how many of those lenses were faulty made me hold off on getting into Pentax mount. Although now, after the introduction of the K7, and learning about the 31mm f/1.8 and 77mm f/1.8 Limited lenses made in Japan, I may plan to get into Pentax. I’d love to become a Pentaxian, becasue Pentaxians seem to have a strong of a culture similar to the culture of Leica users. Leica cameras and lenses are obviously far beyond my reach, and Pentax FA LTD lenses are also very expensive, but much more reasonable, and I would devenitely be confident in buying a Japanese made lens. The Cosina made Zeiss lenses are also great, and avaialable in Pentax mount now! The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, for instance, must be totally awesome! Anywho, I am an Olympus and Sony user at the moment, but chances are that I’ll take the plunge one day, and get the K7 with couple of Japanese LTD lenses (31mm f/1.8 and 77mm f/1.8 to be more specific).
January 13th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Your findings seem to agree with my general observations on another DA to DA* comparison. I recently acquired a DA* 50-135/2.8 and if it hadn’t been for the great deal I got on it, I would be somewhat disappointed. Most Pentaxians rave about this lens but I was underwhelmed. For a top of the line offering, compared to Nikon’s 70-200/2.8 for example (which I have tried as I also use Nikon equipment), it’s just not at the same level. And for most reports, the DA* 16-50 is much less so. As you have also admitted, I may have just got a bad copy of the 50-135, but some of the features I am disappointed with are not likely the result of any sample variation, such as the poor AF performance: slow and inaccurate. On top of that it flares terribly, is soft at the corners wide open- especially at long focal lengths, and suffers from pretty noticeable CA/blue fringing. Lastly, there still seems to be too many reports of defective or failing AF motors in both the 16-50 and the 50-135.
It also seems to be that you and I could never fairly be called “lens snobs” as we both seem to put some value on smaller and lighter equipment where it does appear to be the case with some shutterbugs that to feel virile you have to have big glass.
July 19th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I should have paid more attention to your dead-on review of this lens. I did buy, try and return this lens and the Tamron version. The kit lens that came with my K-x, as you note, is probably one of the best out there. The other lenses did have better fine detail, less color aberration and better very low light performance, but the differences were not noticeable to the naked eye. Side by side comparisons were impossible to tell apart unless you zoom in and examine. They are not worth the pemium price. I did buy the DA* 50-135 and I guess I was expecting the same kind of “pop” I get from that lens. The colors, contrast and sharpness make photos taken with it obviously and significantly better that the kit zoom lens. It takes some of the best photos I’ve ever seen, but the magic did not apply to the DA* standard zoom model. I’m shopping for a good normal prime now and will be satisfied the kit standard zoom for general use.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Bill, thanks for your comments. I chalk my experience up to a bad lens. However, I do agree that the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens features above average image quality for a kit lens. I think the differences are due to the fact that Pentax designs and builds the kit lens themselves but the 16-50mm is a Tokina lens. Of course the 50-135 is also a Tokina lens so maybe I’m wrong…
Cheers!
September 10th, 2010 at 5:59 am
I bought the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM about 2 months ago and recently on a field trip, I noticed two things:
(1) The focussing ring seems to turn indefinately. It will focus to for example infinity, but I can keep turning the focussing ring. I can focus back again with no problem, but it seems asif the focussing ring does not stop or lock at the end (infinity) or beginning ( min. focussing range ) of the focus range. Is this normal ?
(2) When using the autofocus, it works fine for objects that are relatively close, indoors or for portraits… outside, when it has to focus in a distance ( like taking a landscape ), it battles to focus or sometimes does not focus at all and I have to change to manual focus.
Any comments on this will be appreciated.
September 10th, 2010 at 8:04 am
@Cornelius:
(1) : Yep this is normal, it’s because of the “quick shift” mecanism, allowing to retouch focus manually even when in AF mode. Once you get the habit it’s nothing to worry about.
(2) : I sometime experience the same problem, when trying to focus on something too bright or dark usually, but it’s not something I see every time
I have the DA* 16-50 and I find it a good lens, the f2.8 is something I like when shooting concerts for instance (what I do when I can) and I do not see as much defauts as pointed here, but well… I cannot compare with a kit lens or a 16-45 anymore so I may just be expecting less.
September 14th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Thank you very much Thetmes – appreciate the feedback.
September 20th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Hi…I just got thru reading your review and comments. I’ve been using a p&s for awhile now, and plan to get back into my lost love of photography….I was old school…anyway, I saw the whole kit offered at amazon.com for the Pentax K-x and wondered what you thought of it. I’m mostly interested in the lenses that come with it and wanted to know if they were a good value…here’s the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Digital-18-55mm-50-200mm-Accessory/dp/B002WQG1DA/ref=sr_1_11?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285012324&sr=8-11
thanks ahead of time for your input! and, thanks again for an informative review!
September 20th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
oops….I also forgot to mention that I was considering this lense:
Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom Lens for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras……….would this be a better choice instead of the lenses that come in that kit?
thanks again for your input!
December 24th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I bought the new K5 with the 18-55 kit lense and as they say it give you some real good pictures, and I was looking at the 16-50 but I will wait for awhile and look at other reviews be for making up my mind. I think you have to buy from a dealer that will take back a defective lense or refund your money. Myself I love big and heavy lenses as that is what I have always bought, for they don’t flop around as much as the lighter one, just my $.02 worth.
We just need more input to make the plunge LOL.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:41 am
[...] Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM user review by RobertDonovan.com PROS: [...]
May 7th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Hey. For f2.8 and the build quality. This lens is light, not heavy. and the price is fine compare to canon and nikon although the image quality is not up to them.
Just hope the quality control can be improved.
June 8th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Greetings! Nice review of the Pentax 16-50! I am seeking the sharpest 2-lens travel kit with a K-5. I think I settled on the Pentax 15mm DA Limited, but not sure of either midrange zoom or the 35mm f/2.8 DA Macro Limited.
Thank you,
Steve
June 10th, 2011 at 7:48 am
My Pentax 16-50 has not given me any problem until last night. I hear a noise when it is auto focusing, like a tweeting bird sound. And it takes a while to focus especially when live view is on. I bought it in October 2009 from Amazon. Time to send it for repair? I googled the web last night to find anybody experiencing similar problems? I would really appreciate if someone can send me links to this problem.
Thanks,
Rudy
June 26th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Pentax’s SMC lenses are notoriously weak. Time to send it back. Good luck!
August 8th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Greetings! I can attest to the image (and build) quality of the Pentax DA 16-45. Although obviously not quite up to the subject of this review (the Pentax DA* 16-50), I would consider the 16-50 particularly if I needed water/dust-resistance. In that scenario, I believe the DA* 16-50 has no peer, especially when mounted on a WR body! (If the DA 16-45 came in a WR version, that would be awesome indeed.)
September 1st, 2011 at 12:51 am
I bought the Kx a year ago and am going crazy with lenses. I am retired and for the first time in my life have the time and the money to indulge myself somewhat. I have the camera with the kit lens, a tamron macro and a Sigma telephoto. I have taken terrific shots of flowers and birds with those lenses. I purchased the Pentax DA 16-50mm F2.8 because when I upgrade to a K7 I want the weatherproofing. I think there is real difference in clarity between the kit and the 16 lens. But, I have problems with the live view. I think the problem is in the camera. I had to send the camera away to be adjusted because for a while the live view did not work at all. I was out today using the live view, shooting at wide angle at 2.5-4 or so and the lens stopped focusing altogether. Either it was taking an inordinate amount of time to focus or it was not able to focusing. I switched off live view and no trouble focusing. Anyway I am not sure the issue is in the lens or the camera. Tomorrow I’ll try live view with the other lenses. It is easier in live view to check your focus and composition of your shot. But most of the time I use the viewfinder. I have only been doing it a year and a half so part of the problem is my own lack of experience. But, if I determine there is an issue with the live view of this camera, I think Pentax should make it right?
I also find it hard to manually white balance with the Kx. You hold a card in front of you but you have to gaze into the viewfinder to check the adjustment of shutter speed after setting your aperture. That process seems to be easier in other cameras.
December 31st, 2011 at 4:38 am
I am glad for having found your site. I bought my first Pentax digital camera last year, a K7. I bought it with an SMC Pentax-DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited and a Tamron 17-50/2.8. After a while I also bought a Tamron 70-200/2.8. I bought the K7 mainly because it is smaller and lighter than Canon D7 and Nikon D300 which I initially focussed on. I am mentioning this for you guys who have upgraded to K7.
I was never really pleased with the K7. There was always something with the shooting result that made me unhappy. Colours, sharpness and disturbing noise from already ISO800. After a year with the K7 I swapped it for a K5, in an attempt to stay Pentax. I can quite honestly state that the displeasing feelings I had with the K7 shots went away. The K5 gives clearer colours with considerable less NOISE. I gladly use it up to ISO3200!
I have been thinking of changing my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for the Pentax equivalent because of the Pentax weather seal. Reading your review and the comments clear this issue of mine! Thank you very much!
Gorm Chandler
PS
I wish the big Tamron was 50-200! Perhaps a swap for a Pentax 60-250/4?
February 15th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Gorm-
Thanks for the comments. I have several friends who are K5 shooters and they all rave about it. Watch out for lenses with too long of a zoom range. From my experience they often accept too many compromises to get such range out of a single package.
Cheers!