[papillon_65]

Well, I guess that qualifies your previous statements.


The word phenomenal is contextual and high subjective. It appears that you are not easily impressed by above average performance for a given price point. In regards to the 16-45/4, your opinion of that lens is shared by everyone who has owned the lens. It is a great performer, but at 3x the price of the 18-55, it should be. For me f/4 is a little slow at that price point.


Steve

The 16-45mm is not 3 x the price of the 18-55mm WR in the UK, at least not what I paid for mine, more like twice. It's certainly more than twice as good.
If I had average performance from the 18-55mm I'd take that, I'm not even getting that with my two.

[papillon_65]

First let me state clearly that I do not doubt 16-45 is a good lens -
I do believe everyone who says it's a fine lens.

In which case if any other lens tests out close to the 16-45 -
then it ought to be at least a good lens?

lenses wide open at their widest setting -

dpReview of Pentax 16-45


dpReview of Pentax 18-55 Mk1

Perhaps that may not be "fair" since the 16-45 is tested at 16mm and the 18-55 only goes to 18mm -
the next focal length actually tested by dpReview for the 16-45mm was 20mm which ought to give it an advantage:
dpReview of Pentax 16-45


Just so one can see the 18-55 tested at its next focal length of 24mm -
dpReview of Pentax 18-55 Mk1


How about another opinion?
PhotoZone.de on the Pentax 16-45 -

PhotoZone.de on the Pentax 18-55 Mk1


Yes, I would agree that the 16-45 is better in their tests - but how much better is it, really?

I guess you didn't read my post properly, I take lens tests with a pinch of salt, at best they are only a guide. Nothing compares to using a lens in reality, and yes the 16-45mm is streets ahead of the two 18-55mm's I own.
I have the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, lens, reviews indicate that it has vignetting and is not so sharp at 20mm, it is the sharpest prime I have ever used and I almost never see any vignetting, so posting lens tests is a waste of time. My 16-45mm is a much better performer than those tests indicate.
I find these debates interesting in that nobody challenges you when you praise a lens but people try desperately hard to tell me my eyes are deceiving me, or that I must be mistaken, when I criticise a lens they personally like.
I don't think enough people here have used a really good kit lens. They can't have, because this lens just does not stack up against the other 3 I have, not even close.

[UnknownVT]

I guess you didn't read my post properly, I take lens tests with a pinch of salt, at best they are only a guide. Nothing compares to using a lens in reality, and yes the 16-45mm is streets ahead of the two 18-55mm's I own.

I would not disagree with you that your own tests are the most valid
- for you.

Professional tests out there are a guideline - one can accept or reject them.

They normally have specialized equipment to measure more objective things like MTF etc -
are standardized, controlled, and within reason repeatable
- the same cannot be said for our own tests.

But I have already agreed one's own tests are the most valid
for oneself.

I do not doubt your dissatisfaction with your two sample of the 18-55mm zooms -
and I cannot and was not arguing with with your opinion.

The only thing I will say is that I also have two 18-55 - and they seem to give me satisfactory results - and I would be the first to agree it is not the "best lens in the world" and I know it's a mere budget lens - but it seems to give me good results - that is also only my opinion.

So it comes down to opinion -
and I have offered samples and tests results to help support my opinion -
but it is still only an opinion.

The only other thing I would add is that Pentax supplies this lens with just about every dSLR they sell
- yes, being "cheap" is a major reason -
but please also look at it the other way round - it cannot be too much rubbish
- as they are staking their reputation on that lens
since it is the most abundant and their most used lens.....
seems to me to be a very risky thing to do if it were really rubbish?

[eddie1960]

It's a reasonable not very stellar functional lens that will meet the needs of about 70% of the users who may never use anything else other than a larger kit zoom (55-200 for instance)
for the majority they may never really figure out the difference (the forums hardly represent a true picture of the majority)
Unfortunately for me I don't think there has been truly good kit lenses since cameras came equipped with a fast(ish) 50
The kits with the new Dal 35 are i think the closest we come to those days (and from what I've seen it truly is a good performer.
Good wide zooms are expensive, and getting performance consistency is tough as these are the most difficult to design
I'd really like to see the higher end (K7 K5 ...)offered kitted with at least the 16-45 f4.0 possibly in a basic WR version. it could likely be achieved for not a lot more as economies of production scale would help with lens cost

[RioRico]

I'll repeat that comparing inexpensive and expensive items rarely produces useful information. Yes, most Porsches are better than most Beetles. I think I knew that already. If the comparison is favorable for the less expensive item, THEN the information is useful. Otherwise, not.

And I'll repeat that various people can or can't achieve acceptable or even professional results with either a kit lens or the higher-priced alternatives. Fancier gear does not make one a better photographer. That is why prize-winning (and money-making) photos are sometimes shot with Holgas.

And I'll note that for an individual to have experienced multiple 'substandard' copies of a lens, does not mean that all copies are bad. I seem to recall posts describing just how much *glass some users have bought and returned before getting a good one. If a lower percentage of 18-55's are returned than are 16-50's, does that mean the kit lens is better built, despite any optical differences?

So we have different experiences and expectations, different skills and luck, et cetera. And those differences have dragged this thread out for many many pages. Curious...

NOTE: My comments should not be taken as disparaging the abilities and luck of any individual members here. I'm speaking in generalities, not specifics. No hate-mail, please.

[eddie1960]

I'll repeat that comparing inexpensive and expensive items rarely produces useful information. Yes, most Porsches are better than most Beetles. I think I knew that already. If the comparison is favorable for the less expensive item, THEN the information is useful. Otherwise, not.

And I'll repeat that various people can or can't achieve acceptable or even professional results with either a kit lens or the higher-priced alternatives. Fancier gear does not make one a better photographer. That is why prize-winning (and money-making) photos are sometimes shot with Holgas.

And I'll note that for an individual to have experienced multiple 'substandard' copies of a lens, does not mean that all copies are bad. I seem to recall posts describing how much *glass some users have bought and returned before getting a good one. If a lower percentage of 18-55's are returned than are 16-50's, does that mean the kit lens is better built, despite any optical differences?

So we have different experiences and expectations, different skills and luck, et cetera. And those differences have dragged this thread out for many many pages. Curious...

NOTE: My comments should not be taken as disparaging the abilities and luck of any individual members here. I'm speaking in generalities, not specifics. No hate-mail, please.

i tend to agree with you on all points Rico. I have gotten some great results from the kit (particularly when it was my only choice and more recently as I've revisited it in the WR version. but I have other lenses to choose from so i will likely use them before the kit in many cases, but i will keep the kit for occasional use (and the WR is nice to have)
I've gotten good (to me anyway) pics from some pretty crappy gear at times, and pretty poor results from my best gear sometimes (i processed a roll of 645 b/w last night that i know when i scan tonight will be mediocre at best despite the quality of the camera and film that is down to me

[UnknownVT]

And I'll repeat that various people can or can't achieve acceptable or even professional results with either a kit lens or the higher-priced alternatives. Fancier gear does not make one a better photographer. That is why prize-winning (and money-making) photos are sometimes shot with Holgas.
So we have different experiences and expectations, different skills and luck, et cetera. And those differences have dragged this thread out for many many pages. Curious...

I agree with RioRico - too much of all this is personal opinion
and sometimes emotional.

Here is some easy logic

Poor lens cannot possibly give good technical results.

Good technical results (even a single solitary one) has to be from at least an adequate/usable lens.

There are plenty of examples out there of quite satisfactory results from the 18-55mm -
so the 18-55mm has to be at least a satisfactory lens.

They may not all be great photos -
but I too would very much like to buy any great lens
that always guarantees great photos.......

[papillon_65]

I'll repeat that comparing inexpensive and expensive items rarely produces useful information. Yes, most Porsches are better than most Beetles. I think I knew that already. If the comparison is favorable for the less expensive item, THEN the information is useful. Otherwise, not.

And I'll repeat that various people can or can't achieve acceptable or even professional results with either a kit lens or the higher-priced alternatives. Fancier gear does not make one a better photographer. That is why prize-winning (and money-making) photos are sometimes shot with Holgas.

And I'll note that for an individual to have experienced multiple 'substandard' copies of a lens, does not mean that all copies are bad. I seem to recall posts describing just how much *glass some users have bought and returned before getting a good one. If a lower percentage of 18-55's are returned than are 16-50's, does that mean the kit lens is better built, despite any optical differences?

So we have different experiences and expectations, different skills and luck, et cetera. And those differences have dragged this thread out for many many pages. Curious...

NOTE: My comments should not be taken as disparaging the abilities and luck of any individual members here. I'm speaking in generalities, not specifics. No hate-mail, please.

You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, I'll leave it at that.

[RioRico]

You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, I'll leave it at that.

It is not difficult to understand you when you write:

It is unusable wide open at 18mm
It is very poor at 55mm
It is not sharp across the frame at most focal lengths unless you are at F8 or above

And then we can look through the galleries and see images that contradict those assertions. As mentioned, more than a few here have complained of rejecting more than a few bad copies of much more expensive (and higher-rated) lenses before finding a good one. So the bad-copy situation isn't limited to the DA18-55.

Your statements reflect your own experience, and apparently do not reflect the experiences of others here. You seem to dismiss others' reports that contradict you. I regret that you had bad copies. I hope you are happy with your much more expensive glass. Cheers.

[/me puts a two-buck Tomioka 55/1.4 on the K20D and goes snark-hunting]

[Pentaxor]

anyone care to say the kitlens is as good as the Sigma 17-50? and please, no more f8 alibis.

[RioRico]

Anyone want to say that a VW Beetle is as good as a Porsche? And please, no P914 alibis.

[Clarkey]

First let me state clearly that I do not doubt 16-45 is a good lens -
I do believe everyone who says it's a fine lens.

In which case if any other lens tests out close to the 16-45 -
then it ought to be at least a good lens?

lenses wide open at their widest setting -

dpReview of Pentax 16-45


dpReview of Pentax 18-55 Mk1

Perhaps that may not be "fair" since the 16-45 is tested at 16mm and the 18-55 only goes to 18mm -
the next focal length actually tested by dpReview for the 16-45mm was 20mm which ought to give it an advantage:
dpReview of Pentax 16-45


Just so one can see the 18-55 tested at its next focal length of 24mm -
dpReview of Pentax 18-55 Mk1


How about another opinion?
PhotoZone.de on the Pentax 16-45 -

PhotoZone.de on the Pentax 18-55 Mk1


Yes, I would agree that the 16-45 is better in their tests - but how much better is it, really?

I can't believe I am doing this, and responding again to this thread, but I think I stated earlier in this thread (or one like it) that I found the sharpness to be fairly close, but the contrast and colour to be much nicer on the 16-45mm, relative to the 18-55mm.

Ash, I know you had the 16-45mm as well. Is this your experience between the 18-55/16-45mm?

[theunartist]

"See, Mr. Gittes, most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of…anything." Noah Cross, Chinatown

(PS. We should drop the KIT and just call it the 18-55 shorty)

At one time, that was the only lens I had for my Pentax, I squeezed, coaxed, and worked it for some pretty decent images. Does that mean it's a good lens, NO, all it means is it delivered, for the most part, everything I asked of it. I have since acquired several other lenses and very very rarely use the 18-55 shorty, does that mean it's a bad lens, NO.

Some people love the focal range, I like the wide end when I need it, but the longer end just doesn't work for me. There are images produced with this lens that are just outstanding, that's pretty much a fact! But some may say that's a soft image, while others may say that's tight, so what! One man's contrast is another man's dull, BFD... and so on and so on...

To paraphrase...

"...at the right time and the right place, this lens is capable of…anything."

(remember we're only talking about a Lens) Have you ever thought it could be the monitor...

[stevebrot]

The 16-45mm is not 3 x the price of the 18-55mm WR in the UK, at least not what I paid for mine, more like twice. It's certainly more than twice as good.
If I had average performance from the 18-55mm I'd take that, I'm not even getting that with my two.

List Price:

• PentaxWebstore smc Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL II
• PentaxWebstore smcP DA 16-45 f4 ED AL

Street Price:

• 18-55 kit = ~$110-$150
• 16-45/4 = ~$400

Here in the U.S., 3x is definitely the multiplier.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Here is some easy logic

Poor lens cannot possibly give good technical results.

Good technical results (even a single solitary one) has to be from at least an adequate/usable lens.

There are plenty of examples out there of quite satisfactory results from the 18-55mm -
so the 18-55mm has to be at least a satisfactory lens.

Thank you for this comment. The proof of the pudding definitely is in the eating and to say that the 18-55 sucks flies in the face of reality. In less, of course, one is willing to say that all of the examples posted here at PF and on PPG that are technically just fine are really junk.

I can hear it now..."You can't tell anything from these small photos posted on the Web". This much I can tell tell people who use that lame line, "A bad shot stands out like a sore thumb, even at 800px on the wide axis". Smaller does not make soft into sharp. Acceptable, maybe, but not sharp.

Is it a wonderful lens? I guess the answer to that question is how deep your pockets are. If you don't have the bucks to move up to something faster, sharper, and heavier, the 18-55 is an answer to prayer that will allow you to do quality work until better tools are added to your quiver.


Steve

(BTW...the most I have EVER paid for a lens is $525 and that was for the FA 77/1.8 LTD (new). To put it bluntly, I am a bottom feeder and have a lot of respect for inexpensive, off-brand, or odd product...)