[Pentaxor]

I would gladly take some new test shots since the old ones that I took are no longer available. it would show the difference in resolution and exposure as well, the reasons why I didn't like it as much as the other lenses. this is also for informative purposes as well and the intention is not to discredit anyone as some people may perceive.

[Pentaxor]

It's the way you "asked" or stated it - as if I had invented it out of thin air

it looks like that you are the one that is accusing, not me. the difference is, I don't feel insulted since this is more of an inquiry regarding two lens data. you need to relax for once.

[Pentaxor]

Just for completeness here's the SQF chart for original 18-55 (as the Samsung clone), that I also scanned from the paper magazine -

thank you very much.

[GeneV]

I hate using the flash, so I find myself using slower speeds. Maybe I had too high expectations for shake reduction. I should have just taken both lenses, but wanted to cut down on what I'd have to carry. Aghast, I was even starting to think I should have brought my Fuji S6500 instead!

If you hate the flash, then perhaps the more effective upgrade might be trading the K2000 for its successor.

My first upgrade to the kit was the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4. I hardly used the large apertures, but I did have to haul around a lens that was twice the size of the kit. Another upgrade yielded an even heavier option. After getting the little K-x It was much more balanced and weight effective just to carry the kit and that little pancake prime, or even two.

[alohadave]

I don't think the differences are night and day - and I have two reputable reviews to show that the Pentax 18-55mm Mk1 or II both do perform fine wide open.

You can have as many reputable reviews as you want. I'm talking about real world, empirical evidence.

The 18-55 very clearly vignettes 1-2 stops when shot wide open, while the 16-45 does not.

[UnknownVT]

The 18-55 very clearly vignettes 1-2 stops when shot wide open, while the 16-45 does not.

This I will give you - the 18-55's weak spot is vignetting -
the 16-45 's strength is its low vignetting - but it is not entirely trouble free - since you've used wide end wide open as an example -
dpReview of Pentax 16-45 does say:

" Falloff - This is an area where the 16-45 really shines. Due perhaps to the generous front element dimensions and unambitious zoom range, you’ll struggle to see any perceptible falloff (i.e. beyond 1 stop) except wide open at 16mm. Well done Pentax. "

However what caused me to respond originally was this:

Try shooting the 18-55 wide open. The 16-45 will blow it away every single time with a sharper image and no vignetting.

The 16-45 is not entirely trouble free at its widest angle -
from dpReview of the Pentax 16-45:
" Resolution - Decidedly indifferent at 16mm, where it needs to be stopped down to F11 for best results "

compared to the dpReview of Pentax 18-55
" Resolution - This lens is at is best at wideangle (at 18mm it matches the more expensive 16-45mm at 20mm) "

Sorry these are just comparisons from the same review source
and the charts posted in Post #29 clearly does not show the 16-45 at 16mm "blowing away" the 18-55 at 18mm in resolution - if anything the 18-55 does better.

There are as I have already said sample variations -
you may well have a very good 16-45 and a poor 18-55 - to see things the way you do,
whereas under test dpReview may have it the other way round -
however without meaning any disrespect to you, I would trust the thoroughness of dpReview as they probably have the resources to question any lens that may seem out of the ordinary.

[Marc Sabatella]

I would gladly take some new test shots since the old ones that I took are no longer available. it would show the difference in resolution and exposure as well, the reasons why I didn't like it as much as the other lenses. this is also for informative purposes as well

I'm always interested to see such comparisons. They those of us without access to both lenses "quantify" things as they relate to the real world. What I fully expect is there to be differences of such a magnitude that some would call large and others would struggle to see at all. I expect I would fall somewhere in between - I expect I will clearly see differences a 100% if not at screen size, but I also expect I will not be particularly wowed by the magnitude of the differences. Especially as it concerns vignetting, which for some reason just doesn't bother me as much as it bothers some (plus it is most easily removed in PP with very little adverse effect). I expect others may see the exact same differences and call them huge; others may have trouble seeing the differences at all.

[RioRico]

Marc is correct -
from that PopPhoto review of the Samsung 18-55 clone:

" According to insiders, however, Schneider wasn't involved in the design or production of the lenses on which both the D-Xenons are based -- making them Schneiders, for all practical purposes, in name only."

Oops. I know I saw some major-media reference to the 18-55 as a Schneider product (and can't find it now) but I didn't see that PopPhoto note. My bad.

[John Poirier]

So I just got back from a trip, a destination wedding in the Caribbean, relying solely on on my 40mm da pancake lens. I chose to take this instead of the kit lens because of the compact size and slightly faster glass. But I had a hard enough time getting shots of groups b/c 40mm wasn't wide enough. Should I have just taken the kit lens instead? Is there a better, affordable alternative, like Sigma, to the kit lens at f/2.8? Or, should I have just focused more on framing the shots?

Getting back to the original posting, I guess one lesson to be learned is that it can't hurt to take a small, flexible lens lens along to complement primes when going into an unclear situation.

I would certainly have taken a zoom on a trip such as the OP described, but I woud have tested it thoroughly first.

On digital it is very easy and inexpensive to put a lens through its paces and evaluate the results. You can shoot the same subject with another lens and compare. If you are reasonably experienced you can look at files at 100% or higher in your image editor and see for yourself whether the results meet your requirements for the project you have in mind. It also helps you make best use of the lens you have.

Part of the evaluation process is to be clear about your requirements.

For example, a reasonable expectation for an amateur at a wedding would be files good enough to make a sharp 12x18 print. For this project sharp is defined as clear facial features and clothing, achieved with mild to moderate sharpening with no visible artifacts even at short viewing distances. A bit of planning and testing in simulated situations will show whether the lens proposed for the project will meet those standards outdoors at mid apertures or indoors wide open. If the lens doesn't cut it, you have demonstrated a real need for something better.

So before getting dragged into the endless quest for anything but the kit lens, clearly define what you really need. Test your kit lens and see for yourself whether it delivers or not. Analyse where it hits and misses. Look for easy workarounds. (An image is a bit flat? Fix it in curves and/or levels rather than throwing away the lens.) Decide whether the failings are really critical in terms of your current requirements. (Real requirements, not the "I might have to take pictures of supersonic aliens in a coal mine" type.) Clearly identify what you need to overcome critical shortcomings.

You'll then have a better basis for strategies for using the lens, or criteria for selection of replacement or complementary gear.

Anyhow, my own experience with the kit lens is that it is a convenient and competent product capable of pleasing results at mid apertures, which is the way I nearly always use it. With it I produce 12x18 prints that experienced people mistake for shots on full-frame DSLRs with expensive lenses. The post-processing required to achieve that quality is by my standards pretty basic. A lot of us would consider that pretty good. Others would call it pitifully bad, but I guess I can live with that.

John

[GeneV]

Excellent summary, John.

Also, travel is a different animal from other uses for a camera. For travel (other than travel expressly for photography) I want it small and light as well as compentent. I also don't necessarily want it to cost an arm and leg and be an attractive target for theft. There is nothing like the kit lens for that compromise.

If I am shooting a gathering like a wedding or dance, I want the DA17-70, because I know I'll like the results from wide open on. If I did it for money, I'd be all over a fast 16-50.

[CWyatt]

Also, travel is a different animal from other uses for a camera. For travel (other than travel expressly for photography) I want it small and light as well as compentent. I also don't necessarily want it to cost an arm and leg and be an attractive target for theft. There is nothing like the kit lens for that compromise.

I don't really agree. I'm surprised at the amount of threads on here asking for travel advice however, so many people must agree with you. Travel can be one of the best opportunities to take good photographs, and I'm going to use the gear I paid good money for, and take my chances with theft etc, with good precautions. However I do note your point about travel expressly for photography, but I can't make the distinction between travel for photography or otherwise.

That being said, I don't have much gear. Don't use a tripod or flash, and I prefer smaller and lighter equipment anyway. But the kit lens wouldn't cut it speed wise for my own travels, so that rules it out instantly.

[RioRico]

There is travel, and there is travel. I travel with 2 or 3 bags filled with lenses in my car's back seat, and my carry sack (a large Ameribag) with the half-dozen or so lenses I expect to use per day. Were I flying, I might stick to 8 or 9 lenses. Were I living out of a pack for a few months, I might take only a K7, DA18-250, FA50/1.4, and Raynox DCR-250, along with a Sony Vaoi sub-notebook. Were I to live rough for a year or two, I might subsist on a K7, a DA18-55WR, and the Raynox -- and the lens would never leave the body. Different styles, different kits.

The excellent gallery shots here that were taken with the 18-55 attest that it's not a crap lens. In another thread we read of a pro who makes her living shooting weddings with a K10D, DA18-55, and a big flash. I suspect that many many Pentax purchasers (who never make it to these forums) buy a kit and never remove the lens, just as more than a few Spotty owners never unscrewed the ST55/2 from the body. We've seen the test charts showing the 18-55's qualities. But no, it's the kit lens, so we must despise it. Sigh...

[CWyatt]

There is travel, and there is travel.

My point is that, if anyone else is like me, there isn't travel and travel. My kit fits in one portable bag, provides range and speed, and is designed to come with me whenever and wherever. I take it down the street, or backpacking in other countries.
However I don't use many lenses, I can shoot with one lens all day.

[tibbitts]

I have the 16-45mm and the 18-55mm Samsung (so, the original version.) I have compared them and there seems to be more CA in the 16-45, and more vignetting in the 18-55. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much difference on my (<= 10mp) cameras.

Sample variation probably makes most of the arguments on both sides moot. Just look at the 16-45mm. The front lens components are only vaguely connected to the rear components. So gravity, not to mention sample variation, can probably come into play.

As for the original group picture question, I don't think there are many times when you won't need f4 or more depth of field in a group picture.

Paul

[GeneV]

I don't really agree. I'm surprised at the amount of threads on here asking for travel advice however, so many people must agree with you. Travel can be one of the best opportunities to take good photographs, and I'm going to use the gear I paid good money for, and take my chances with theft etc, with good precautions. However I do note your point about travel expressly for photography, but I can't make the distinction between travel for photography or otherwise.

That being said, I don't have much gear. Don't use a tripod or flash, and I prefer smaller and lighter equipment anyway. But the kit lens wouldn't cut it speed wise for my own travels, so that rules it out instantly.

It's a legitimate goal of travel to take photos. I've traveled that way, too--3 bodies and 10 lenses. Most people who talk about "traveling" these days (especially by plane) are not talking about that kind of trip.

You don't list your equipment, so I can't tell what your "kit" would be. If I decided to take all my stuff, I'd be schlepping 9 bodies and more than 20 lenses. That isn't happening on a trip of any distance.