erik_skipit Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Does anyone have images that were shot with the 16 to 50 lens at 2.8 that they can post?....What i'd like to see is images that were outside with plenty behind it....I want to see show it looks at 2.8...I am thinking about getting this lens.....I have to decide get the lens or fight the 18 to 55 5.6 that i have now.... Which....Which shooting with Jordan today i got out my old 28 by 80....Its a promaster,generic right?...Anyway...I saw its a 3.5 to 5.6.....I was like 3.5 right on....But the shots blurred....I was shooting fairly slower shutter speed... Anyway....So does anyone have a image that WAS shot at 2.8 with a 16 to 50 outside so i can see what it looks like...I've not seen many,or maybe seen them in other threads not knowing they were shot with the 16 to 50 at 2.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renatoa Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Better get the Sigma 24-60/2.8 at 1/3 !!! price See Micheal thread about it started yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_skipit Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Renato...Thanks but i need wide i need that 16... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kuhne Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Well, Erik no one can deny the Pentax DA* 16-50mm is a fine lens, presuming you get a good sample. And you do get the SDM/and standard focus, along with weather resistant quality construction. But that does cost. I figure if I ever decide I really need one, I'll wait a couple of years for the quality control issues to be ironed out. But I doubt I will need one. For myself, I have found the greater f/2.8 aperture is not nearly as much an issue with a shorter focal length like between 10-28mm, as with mid to longer FL. Even the kit lens is f/3.5 at the 18mm end, less than one stop from the f/2.8 lenses! But a kit lens will be much slower at 50, 60, or 70mm than f/2.8!! An aperture faster than f/5.6 in a zoom through that FL range is harder to find and costs more. A larger aperture will provide 3 main advantages over a slower lens- brighter viewing in the VF; allows in more light for a faster shutter speed in low light conditions or for action shots; and finally, can provide a reduced depth of field, which blurs a background more to make your subject stand out better from it. The last two of these three are not nearly as critical or as applicable for a very short, wide-angle focal length, as for mid or tele focal length. A good sample of the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 is indeed a very nice lens to have, but I already have plenty of wide angle, and a wide to mid-long with my kit lens, but I like having moderate wide angle together with that greater reach of 60mm at f/2.8, but others' shooting needs may differ, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_skipit Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Thanks Michael for that insight,very helpful....However....I was hoping some images would be posted that were taken outside at 2.8 so i could SEE how they look...Taken with the 16 to 50 that is...At 2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renatoa Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/smc_da_16-50_28_ed_al_if_sdm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kuhne Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Erik, first keep in mind that in general, lenses are not at their best when wide open. For best resolution and contrast, better to stop down a little. so a f/2.8 lens one stop down from wide open would be at f/4, which would be wide open for other lenses. Also, most lenses like this are often not really good at quality close focus. That is not usually what they are all about. otherwise, what you could expect to see upon careful scrutiny of a well-photographed image at f/2.8 is a very good central portion resolution, but rather softer border areas, especially at 16mm, and slightly reduced contrast. In the 40-50mm range, the borders are better, but with the reduced depth of field, your subject being in the central area will be sharp, and the out of focus borders will not require top quality anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kuhne Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Good link, Renato, I was going to suggest pbase as well. You should be able to find some there. You can go to their home page and under Cameras, select another brand and chooses various lenses for photo samples also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_papandreou1 Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 <i>Well, Erik no one can deny the Pentax DA* 16-50mm is a fine lens, presuming you get a good sample.</i> <p> Is that still a problem? I was under the impression QC issues had to do with demand while the lens was new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kuhne Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Leo, that may be true. But older stock also may still be on shelves. The lens has not been out that long. Who knows at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacques c pelletier Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Erik, I have one such photo to show you but I just can't seem to be able to post it here!! Do you know how to do this because I have read the "instructions" and I cannot find exactly. The photo is in my very restricted gallery (2 photos in there, including the one you are looking for) ... but I can't get it to attach here. If you have any idea. please let me know. JP<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacques c pelletier Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Erik, there it is above .... I finally got it to work. However, since the site requires 100K maximum for the posted photos, the quality has suffered a great deal, from 100% JPEG quality, down to about 40%, so this looks quite bad in spite of the originally reduced size at 235K looked a whole lot better. If you want, I could email it to you ... at 235-250K size. JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacques c pelletier Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Me again Erik: I must apologize to you and to all of the viewers of this last post with the photo ... You asked for a DA*16-50 taken at f2.8 and I goofed!! This was at 5.6 I believe. truly sorry and I will make it up to you soon enough. JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pj_vesterback Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Here's a couple both shot wide open with the 16-50 DA*. The first one is my Pa. Give a good idea about the shallow depth of field. The tip of his nose is in focus but his eyes are not. The second one is of my Ma. Focus is spot on her eyes and because of that I think there seems to be more dof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pj_vesterback Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Pa <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/17314025@N00/3003510169/" title="Paw by Fnawzm, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/3003510169_dbb317515f_o.jpg" width="800" height="535" alt="Paw" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pj_vesterback Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Ma <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/17314025@N00/3003510109/" title="Maw by Fnawzm, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/3003510109_0b32efde8e_o.jpg" width="800" height="535" alt="Maw" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_skipit Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 @Michael...So i'm getting a 2.8 lens that i'd be best to shoot at 4.0 anyway....Sigh...So on a variable lens 5.6 is right about where you should be anyway...Yes? @Reanto....Thanks for the link man..Thankyou for thinking of me =) @JP...Sorry i am to new here to be of any help...Whats a gallery anyway i hear that term tossed around on the board.... @JP...No worries man your here your posting and contributing and trying to help out its great to meet you!!! =) @Patrick...Do they know your posting them on the net lol......Kids these days....Okay...I was told about the eyes being in focus the nose not,that it falls off that fast...Which leads me to ask....Man if it falls off that fast whats the bloody point!!!....I mean you want your images sharp...So i guess you just never shoot a portrait shot at 2.8......And anyway by Michaels post if i understand,you dont want to shoot at 2.8 anyway..... Guys thanks so much your all great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pj_vesterback Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Erik - No they don't know. I would be surprised if either one has ever been on the internet. Mom maybe... Dad for sure not. Don't worry I plan to remove the shots. I don't shoot a lot of portraits but those I do are not at f/2.8. These just happened to have been as they were just snaps testing a new flash. Yep kids... LOL... far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now