[UnknownVT]

it would be advisable to look for other photography review sites other than dpreview alone inorder to check for consistency of such findings and to try out the lenses as well. the danger is when people would only rely on one source which is a NO NO.

I have nothing against the 16-45 in fact all I said was that they are both good lenses and the difference is not night and day - of course one is going to disagree with any site that does not reflect one's opinion......

how about another review not associated with dpReview then -
- is this one unreliable as well?

Popular Photography tested both the original 18-55 (as the Samsung clone) and the more current 18-55 AL II versions -
this is the very useful SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) chart - from their review of the Pentax DA 18-55 AL II -

note the wide open scores - it kind of reflects the other review........

[JeffJS]

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?

It really doesn't matter Now, Does it? Unless you intend for this to be your main area of focus (group shots). That said, you would probably figure on spending up to at least $400 for a kit lens replacement. I've seen Used DA16-45 lenses on the bay for under $300, quite often recently but that's an f4 lens. In this type of a situation though, I think f2.8 is overrated but, that's just my opinion. In a tight room, even 16mm isn't wide enough sometimes (trust me, I've tried it). Unless you can get far enough away, you're looking at something like the DA12-24.

With all that rambling, your best bet for a Kit replacement, if price is really an issue (otherwise I'd say DA*16-50), would be the Sigma 17-70 and I would say get the non HSM version (used) as, again, it can be found for less than $300.

To answer your other question (highlighted in red), Yes.

[Pentaxor]

I have nothing against the 16-45 in fact all I said was that they are both good lenses and the difference is not night and day - of course one is going to disagree with any site that does not reflect one's opinion......

how about another review not associated with dpReview then -
- is this one unreliable as well?

Popular Photography tested both the original 18-55 (as the Samsung clone) and the more current 18-55 AL II versions -
this is the very useful SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) chart - from their review of the Pentax DA 18-55 AL II -

note the wide open scores - it kind of reflects the other review........

I dont know where you got the SQF chart, since the link you provided didn't show one at all. it was the Xenon variant and it didn't state that it's the ver II of the Pentax (I would assume it's the ver I). also, it would had helped if you could had showed a review and an SQF chart of the 16-45 as well. inorder to see such consistency in difference of two lenses, not just one. therefore, this would be inconclusive as the 16-45 could be higher therefore contradiction the dpreview charts, unless you could provide the numbers that says otherwise that it is consistent. if the SQF chart of the 16-45 plays along the line of what dpreview says (slightly inferior to the 18-55), then that would had helped. anyway, I'm still unimpressed by the images that I got from the 18-55 WR. I'm not saying that I wasn't able to produce very good results, I'm saying that I'm unimpressed (not blown away). if I were to summarize what I didn't like about it, these would be the ff:

1. not wide enough.
2. not as sharp and contrasty as my other lenses which I would have liked.
3. resolution and detail is not as snappy or intricate as that of my other lenses. (midrange - infinity).
4. underexposes by half stop.
5. 50mm-55mm is soft. (even my retired M50/2 blows it away)
6. slow aperture and poor rendering under lowlight. this lens has failed me already.
7. limited use (due to underwhelming performance) at some of the focal lengths which decreases the versatility of the lens.

ultimately, there are several instances and situations that I would already hesitate to use the lens or find it short-handed. it doesn't cut out on those instances and I find it a burden, that's why I'm not that as really impressed.

[Pentaxor]

a shot taken by the 18-55 WR. some people might say that this is good enough, but for me, I still find it a bit short in the impressive category.

[Recercare]

Why not add a prime to your kit, like the DA 21mm F3.2 LTD or FA/F 28mm F2.8?
Kind regards
.lars

[UnknownVT]

I dont know where you got the SQF chart, since the link you provided didn't show one at all. it was the Xenon variant and it didn't state that it's the ver II of the Pentax (I would assume it's the ver I).

The source of that scan was clearly shown - Popular Photography July/2008.

It was a review of the Pentax 18-55 Mk II in the paper magazine which they did not put on their web site - not everything in this world is on the web.

The link as clearly stated was for the Mk 1 version as the Samsung clone.

To disagree is one thing, to question the integrity of the person you may disagree with is pretty insulting.

Here is the full review I just scanned (and I did not make it up):





Popular photography have not done a test on the 16-45 - I have taken your word for it that it is good - as other reviews have also indicated - like I said I have nothing against the 16-45 zoom the only real objection is the assertions:

sometimes I regretted why I bought a $200 brand new 18-55 WR where I could had bought a used 16-45 for the same amount. it doesn't take rocket science to see the IQ difference between the 2 lenses. if someone would go for IQ for a cheap price, the 16-45 would be the best alternative.

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

this is what I noticed as well when I tried both lenses. and I dont think that the dpreview chart really gives an accurate report. if people would rely mainly on dpreview chart, I believe that people will get the false sense of information as the dpreview charts would show that Pentax lenses are inferior with other brands, which I would think would cause an uproar from users of such lenses.

it would be advisable to look for other photography review sites other than dpreview alone inorder to check for consistency of such findings and to try out the lenses as well. the danger is when people would only rely on one source which is a NO NO.

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.

[bigdog104]

Here is the full review I just scanned (and I did not make it up):

Interesting article, good information, thanks for taking the time to scan it in. Pentax lens vs.Pentax lens aside for a moment, I did not realize that the front of the Nikon Kit lens rotated, good piece of trivia to know for when the next time some one asks "Why Pentax?".

[GeneV]

Thanks for all the advice. How do all those Sigma lenses compare with IQ on the 40mm da? Since the wife won't approve getting "yet another one of those lens things," do you think it's a good idea to consider trading my 40mm for something like a Sigma 18-50, f/2.8-4.5?

Honestly, you have a great combo with the DA40 plus the kit lens. The mistake would be not taking both on the trip. The DA40 is sharp and fast at the end where the DA18-55 starts to get slower and softer. I've used this combo quite a bit as a minimalist rig. The DA18-55 plus the DA70 is another great combo.

To know where you need to go, you should ask yourself exactly what have you done with the 18-55 where it failed or disappointed you?

[Marc Sabatella]

a shot taken by the 18-55 WR. some people might say that this is good enough, but for me, I still find it a bit short in the impressive category.

But that's impossible to judge or put into any sort of context without seeing the corresponding picture take with the 16-45 or whatever other lens you prefer. No doubt if one pixel peeps hard enough, there will be differences, but it's pretty hard to image that at the size posted, there would be a difference that anyone could consistently spot in a blindfold test.

[Pentaxor]

The source of that scan was clearly shown - Popular Photography July/2008.

It was a review of the Pentax 18-55 Mk II in the paper magazine which they did not put on their web site - not everything in this world is on the web.

The link as clearly stated was for the Mk 1 version as the Samsung clone.

To disagree is one thing, to question the integrity of the person you may disagree with is pretty insulting.

Here is the full review I just scanned (and I did not make it up):





Popular photography have not done a test on the 16-45 - I have taken your word for it that it is good - as other reviews have also indicated - like I said I have nothing against the 16-45 zoom the only real objection is the assertions:




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.

why should you be insulted? I'm only asking where you get the SQF chart since I didn't see it in the link that you provided + the fact that the lens that you are refering to in the website, doesn't have an SQF chart either. nobody is accusing you of something. when people ask for data, it is an inquiry, not an inquisition.

secondly, I'm not interested in the stat sheets of one lens alone. I clearly stated that it would had help if you could provide the data with the 16-45 as well to show consistency in another source where the charts between the two lenses that you initially have shown a comparative SQF data, cite post #11. like perse photozone. as you will notice, the MTF chart between the 2 lenses shows a significant difference between the 2 which is clearly opposite than what dpreview MTF graph shows or atleast perceived. now as far as my experiences with the two lenses, the findings that I saw more likely corresponds to the photozone charts, rather than the dpreview one. lastly, kindly read what I don't like about the 18-55 WR inorder to shed light why I prefer another lens than it.

[olenl]

all zooms are defective in one way or another. one has bad res over edges, the other has multiple pixel wide CA (oh wait, all of them do), etc.

why not spend the same money for another prime lens to cover wide angle, like DA 21mm or DA 15mm?

I think 2 primes 1 of which is DA 40mm will take less space than huge zoom... you have to learn to switch lenses quickly though.

[Pentaxor]

But that's impossible to judge or put into any sort of context without seeing the corresponding picture take with the 16-45 or whatever other lens you prefer. No doubt if one pixel peeps hard enough, there will be differences, but it's pretty hard to image that at the size posted, there would be a difference that anyone could consistently spot in a blindfold test.

I saw the difference at the infinity end when I'm shooting architectures. even at small full image, the difference or weakness is noticeable across the frame. when I'm cropping images, it even shows more of the weakness.

[GeneV]

but it's pretty hard to image that at the size posted, there would be a difference that anyone could consistently spot in a blindfold test.

It's pretty hard to imagine that one could spot too many differences in a blindfolded test.

[UnknownVT]

why should you be insulted? I'm only asking where you get the SQF chart since I didn't see it in the link that you provided + the fact that the lens that you are refering to in the website, doesn't have an SQF chart either. nobody is accusing you of something. when people ask for data, it is an inquiry, not an inquisition.

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

I dont know where you got the SQF chart, since the link you provided didn't show one at all. it was the Xenon variant and it didn't state that it's the ver II of the Pentax (I would assume it's the ver I).

when I had very clearly stated (more than once too, in Posts #5 & #32):

Popular Photography tested both the original 18-55 (as the Samsung clone) and the more current 18-55 AL II versions -
this is the very useful SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) chart - from their review of the Pentax DA 18-55 AL II -

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

[LucyGoosey]

Honestly, you have a great combo with the DA40 plus the kit lens. The mistake would be not taking both on the trip. The DA40 is sharp and fast at the end where the DA18-55 starts to get slower and softer. I've used this combo quite a bit as a minimalist rig. The DA18-55 plus the DA70 is another great combo.

To know where you need to go, you should ask yourself exactly what have you done with the 18-55 where it failed or disappointed you?

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!