I Bought A 16-45 And A 50-200 Today

Mike Bokeh · 10-14-2007, 07:52 PM

I went to B&H today to get the 16-45, and convinced myself that I also needed a longer lens, so I bought the 50-200 too.

Hey, you weren't there to stop me, so I bought them both.

Here are a few shots from the 16-45. These were just quick grab shots; normally, I would use a tripod and meter a little more carefully, but I just wanted some test shots.

Exposure info is on the top of each photo.

16mm f6.7 @ 1/250 sec ISO 400

19mm f6.7 @ 1/350 sec ISO 400 Mmmm...'59 Corvette!

45mm f6.7 @ 1/125 sec ISO 400

So far, I like this lens.

Some images from the 50-200 to follow.

Mike

Last edited by Mike Bokeh; 10-14-2007 at 08:32 PM.

Mike Bokeh · 10-14-2007, 08:06 PM

Here are a few from the 50-200.

95mm f5.6 @ 1/180 sec ISO 400

88mm f5.6 @ 1/180 sec ISO 400

58mm f5.6 @ 1/180 sec ISO 400

80mm f6.7 @ 1/350 sec ISO 400 This one is my favorite of the day.

I think the 50-200 will make a pretty decent portrait lens in the 50-70mm range @ f4 to 5.6.

True, it's not going to have the bokeh of f2.8, (which I'll miss) but I think it'll do fine.

We shall see.

I won't have any more test shots until next weekend, when I can shoot again.

Enjoy.

Mike

Mike Bokeh · 10-14-2007, 08:20 PM

One more thing: Here are two shots of the same house, the first taken with the 18-55, and the second taken with the 16-45.

Which of the two do you like better?

Why?

All comments/opinions welcome.

18-55 18mm @ f5.6 1/125 sec ISO 400

16-45 16mm @ f8 1/125 sec ISO 400

Mike

MJB DIGITAL · 10-14-2007, 10:09 PM

wow three hours with no reply whats going on here....

i like the second one with the 16-45 better.
the reason is that in the first shot with the 18-55 the highlights are [almost] blown...if not, they are blown all the way

but to preserve its reputation, you have shot those with the 18-55 at 5.6 while you shot the same shot with the 16-45 at f8

so you kind of did an uneven test

however, i like the shot at f8 because the highlights arent blown

Mitch

J.Scott · 10-15-2007, 12:05 AM

The 16-45mm seems to better represent fine detail. Both lenses seem to have a fair bit of CA; the 18-55mm seems worse upon closer examination. But if both were handed to me in a 5" X 7" print I would have a hard time discerning any significant differences. However, I do have to agree with MJB Digital that to properly assess both shots should have been at the same settings. But the differences between f5.6 and f8 for this experiment is pretty darn close.

Mike Bokeh · 10-15-2007, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by MJB DIGITAL

wow three hours with no reply whats going on here....

i like the second one with the 16-45 better.
the reason is that in the first shot with the 18-55 the highlights are [almost] blown...if not, they are blown all the way

but to preserve its reputation, you have shot those with the 18-55 at 5.6 while you shot the same shot with the 16-45 at f8

so you kind of did an uneven test

however, i like the shot at f8 because the highlights arent blown

Mitch

Hmmm...

You know, I never thought about making sure both tests were done at the same aperture.

I'll have to make sure I do this with the next test.

Thanks, Mitch, you too, J. Scott.

Mike

pentkon52 · 10-16-2007, 04:24 AM

I own both of these lenses, and the 16-45 is a permenant fixture on the K10D. I think the 16-46 is a slightly better lens as far as sharpness, BUT i get some very good pictures from the 50-200.

For the price and build quality, i think they are worth having.

Not as good as my 77 but..........

Dave Brooks

ricardobeat · 10-16-2007, 06:22 AM

You did crop the 16mm shot, right? Do you mind posting a comparison between the wide angles on both lenses?

Mike Bokeh · 10-16-2007, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by ricardobeat

You did crop the 16mm shot, right? Do you mind posting a comparison between the wide angles on both lenses?

No, both shots have had absolutely nothing done to them.

They were both shot with the color/contrast/sharpness options at zero, 6mp jpeg.

I took both pictures from as close to the same spot as possible, although the 18-55 shot was taken about 24 hours before the 16-45 shot.

If you look closely at the corner of the porch, it's more exaggerated in the second (16mm) shot.

I'm going to try to do a fairly thorough test this weekend between the 18-55 and the 16-45 with the camera on a tripod, and all settings the same. I'm also going to test the 50-200.

Mike

Mike Bokeh · 10-16-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by pentkon52

I own both of these lenses, and the 16-45 is a permenant fixture on the K10D. I think the 16-46 is a slightly better lens as far as sharpness, BUT i get some very good pictures from the 50-200.

For the price and build quality, i think they are worth having.

Not as good as my 77 but..........

Dave Brooks

I agree, even though I hesitate to rate anything when I've had it for such a short time.

The 16-45 feels as though it's more solid than the 18-55 (it should - it's 4x the price!

) but the kit lens is still a good all-around performer. One thing which I read about here first, but still surprised me is how far out the 16-45 extends at the wide setting!

I was looking for one fast lens in the 18-50(70) range, and then I thought to myself that I might be better off with two more moderately priced lenses covering a wider range, and gave up chasing the coveted and elusive f2.8 until I get a prime or two.

I really like the overall feel, and the images I've seen from the 50-200 so far.

Hopefully it won't rain, so I can get some decent outdoor shots from each lens this weekend.

So far there's not much color on the leaves here in Queens, New York this autumn, but they should start turning soon. Can't wait for that!

Here's a very good map of Queens County. Enjoy.

map

Mike

ddhytz · 10-16-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Mike Bokeh

No, both shots have had absolutely nothing done to them.
...

Did you take those two at different angles?
The 18-55 one has more on the left side, see the skeleton. That's why 16-45 one looks like cropped.

Mike Bokeh · 10-16-2007, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by ddhytz

Did you take those two at different angles?
The 18-55 one has more on the left side, see the skeleton. That's why 16-45 one looks like cropped.

I stood in what I remember to be the same spot (the same opening in the wrought-iron gate in front of the house) and tried as best I could to compose the same image.

But no cropping was done.

Mike

hinman · 10-18-2007, 12:29 PM

Mike,

Those are very nice pictures. Hmm, now I think you may have to use your DA 18-55 much less. Congratulation on your copy of DA 50-200, I also get a good copy of the lens, and you can see my thoughts along with others in my gear list for DA 50-200

Inexpensive gear with Pentax - Hin's Tech Corner

Photozone.de Pentax DA 50-200 review - Hin's Tech Corner

I share the similar thought that I can use it for portraits in the 50-70 range, I actually find it very useful from 50-90 range with my boys for indoor

Portraits with Pentax DA 50-200 - Hin's Tech Corner

Thanks,
Hin

Mike Bokeh · 10-18-2007, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by hinman

Mike,

Those are very nice pictures. Hmm, now I think you may have to use your DA 18-55 much less. Congratulation on your copy of DA 50-200, I also get a good copy of the lens, and you can see my thoughts along with others in my gear list for DA 50-200

Inexpensive gear with Pentax - Hin's Tech Corner

Photozone.de Pentax DA 50-200 review - Hin's Tech Corner

I share the similar thought that I can use it for portraits in the 50-70 range, I actually find it very useful from 50-90 range with my boys for indoor

Portraits with Pentax DA 50-200 - Hin's Tech Corner

Thanks,
Hin

Thanks, Hinman, but these were just test shots, although I did like the results so far.

Hopefully the weather will cooperate, and I'll have the time to do some decent tripod-mounted shots of all the lenses at the same apertures this weekend.

Mike

axl · 10-19-2007, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by MJB DIGITAL

so you kind of did an uneven test....

good point, it's hard to be honest if they are at different f stops... anyway 16-45 has reputation of better and sharper lens, I just can't justify it's purchase so I'm sticking with 18-55 which is decent performer especialy stopped down....

Originally posted by ricardobeat

Do you mind posting a comparison between the wide angles on both lenses?

I'd really apreciate that too, I compared those two in shop and it didn't seem to me as such big difference, but would love to see propper wide angle comparison shot on some landscape or so....
do you have any? pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaase....

Originally posted by Mike Bokeh

No, both shots have had absolutely nothing done to them.

They were both shot with the color/contrast/sharpness options at zero, 6mp jpeg.

I took both pictures from as close to the same spot as possible, although the 18-55 shot was taken about 24 hours before the 16-45 shot.

If you look closely at the corner of the porch, it's more exaggerated in the second (16mm) shot.

I'm going to try to do a fairly thorough test this weekend between the 18-55 and the 16-45 with the camera on a tripod, and all settings the same. I'm also going to test the 50-200.

Mike

It's not exactly the same spot, unfortunately...
or the framing is bit different, hence it's harder to comapre them...
different time of the day, different day, and maybe different framing would affect metering, so I would assing blown out highlights from 18-55 shot to these... but maybe I'm wrong...
regards....

10-14-2007, 07:52 PM	#1
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608	I Bought A 16-45 And A 50-200 Today I went to B&H today to get the 16-45, and convinced myself that I also needed a longer lens, so I bought the 50-200 too. Hey, you weren't there to stop me, so I bought them both. Here are a few shots from the 16-45. These were just quick grab shots; normally, I would use a tripod and meter a little more carefully, but I just wanted some test shots. Exposure info is on the top of each photo. 16mm f6.7 @ 1/250 sec ISO 400 19mm f6.7 @ 1/350 sec ISO 400 Mmmm...'59 Corvette! 45mm f6.7 @ 1/125 sec ISO 400 So far, I like this lens. Some images from the 50-200 to follow. Mike Last edited by Mike Bokeh; 10-14-2007 at 08:32 PM.

10-14-2007, 08:06 PM	#2
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	Here are a few from the 50-200. 95mm f5.6 @ 1/180 sec ISO 400 88mm f5.6 @ 1/180 sec ISO 400 58mm f5.6 @ 1/180 sec ISO 400 80mm f6.7 @ 1/350 sec ISO 400 This one is my favorite of the day. I think the 50-200 will make a pretty decent portrait lens in the 50-70mm range @ f4 to 5.6. True, it's not going to have the bokeh of f2.8, (which I'll miss) but I think it'll do fine. We shall see. I won't have any more test shots until next weekend, when I can shoot again. Enjoy. Mike Last edited by Mike Bokeh; 10-14-2007 at 08:28 PM.

10-15-2007, 12:05 AM	#5
J.Scott Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,675	The 16-45mm seems to better represent fine detail. Both lenses seem to have a fair bit of CA; the 18-55mm seems worse upon closer examination. But if both were handed to me in a 5" X 7" print I would have a hard time discerning any significant differences. However, I do have to agree with MJB Digital that to properly assess both shots should have been at the same settings. But the differences between f5.6 and f8 for this experiment is pretty darn close. Last edited by J.Scott; 10-15-2007 at 12:20 AM.

10-18-2007, 12:29 PM	#13
hinman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fremont, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,473	Very nice pictures Mike, Those are very nice pictures. Hmm, now I think you may have to use your DA 18-55 much less. Congratulation on your copy of DA 50-200, I also get a good copy of the lens, and you can see my thoughts along with others in my gear list for DA 50-200 Inexpensive gear with Pentax - Hin's Tech Corner Photozone.de Pentax DA 50-200 review - Hin's Tech Corner I share the similar thought that I can use it for portraits in the 50-70 range, I actually find it very useful from 50-90 range with my boys for indoor Portraits with Pentax DA 50-200 - Hin's Tech Corner Thanks, Hin

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I bought the cutest little FF camera today	little laker	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	14	06-04-2010 06:26 PM
Bought my first ltd today! 70 f/2.4	PentaxPoke	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	02-10-2009 10:40 AM
I just bought a used K10d so here's some photos from today	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	5	09-17-2008 07:32 AM
Just bought my K10D today	Mister E	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	02-02-2008 07:06 AM
Bought a tripod, today.	NLAlston	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	1	05-14-2007 05:33 PM

10-14-2007, 08:20 PM	#3
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	One more thing: Here are two shots of the same house, the first taken with the 18-55, and the second taken with the 16-45. Which of the two do you like better? Why? All comments/opinions welcome. 18-55 18mm @ f5.6 1/125 sec ISO 400 16-45 16mm @ f8 1/125 sec ISO 400 Mike

10-14-2007, 10:09 PM	#4
MJB DIGITAL Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: st. louis Posts: 1,170	wow three hours with no reply whats going on here.... i like the second one with the 16-45 better. the reason is that in the first shot with the 18-55 the highlights are [almost] blown...if not, they are blown all the way but to preserve its reputation, you have shot those with the 18-55 at 5.6 while you shot the same shot with the 16-45 at f8 so you kind of did an uneven test however, i like the shot at f8 because the highlights arent blown Mitch

10-15-2007, 03:37 AM	#6
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	Originally posted by MJB DIGITAL wow three hours with no reply whats going on here.... i like the second one with the 16-45 better. the reason is that in the first shot with the 18-55 the highlights are [almost] blown...if not, they are blown all the way but to preserve its reputation, you have shot those with the 18-55 at 5.6 while you shot the same shot with the 16-45 at f8 so you kind of did an uneven test however, i like the shot at f8 because the highlights arent blown Mitch Hmmm... You know, I never thought about making sure both tests were done at the same aperture. I'll have to make sure I do this with the next test. Thanks, Mitch, you too, J. Scott. Mike

10-16-2007, 04:24 AM	#7
pentkon52 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: York Region Canada Posts: 641	I own both of these lenses, and the 16-45 is a permenant fixture on the K10D. I think the 16-46 is a slightly better lens as far as sharpness, BUT i get some very good pictures from the 50-200. For the price and build quality, i think they are worth having. Not as good as my 77 but.......... Dave Brooks

10-16-2007, 06:22 AM	#8
ricardobeat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brazil Posts: 376	You did crop the 16mm shot, right? Do you mind posting a comparison between the wide angles on both lenses?

10-16-2007, 04:25 PM	#9
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	Originally posted by ricardobeat You did crop the 16mm shot, right? Do you mind posting a comparison between the wide angles on both lenses? No, both shots have had absolutely nothing done to them. They were both shot with the color/contrast/sharpness options at zero, 6mp jpeg. I took both pictures from as close to the same spot as possible, although the 18-55 shot was taken about 24 hours before the 16-45 shot. If you look closely at the corner of the porch, it's more exaggerated in the second (16mm) shot. I'm going to try to do a fairly thorough test this weekend between the 18-55 and the 16-45 with the camera on a tripod, and all settings the same. I'm also going to test the 50-200. Mike

10-16-2007, 05:08 PM	#10
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	Originally posted by pentkon52 I own both of these lenses, and the 16-45 is a permenant fixture on the K10D. I think the 16-46 is a slightly better lens as far as sharpness, BUT i get some very good pictures from the 50-200. For the price and build quality, i think they are worth having. Not as good as my 77 but.......... Dave Brooks I agree, even though I hesitate to rate anything when I've had it for such a short time. The 16-45 feels as though it's more solid than the 18-55 (it should - it's 4x the price! ) but the kit lens is still a good all-around performer. One thing which I read about here first, but still surprised me is how far out the 16-45 extends at the wide setting! I was looking for one fast lens in the 18-50(70) range, and then I thought to myself that I might be better off with two more moderately priced lenses covering a wider range, and gave up chasing the coveted and elusive f2.8 until I get a prime or two. I really like the overall feel, and the images I've seen from the 50-200 so far. Hopefully it won't rain, so I can get some decent outdoor shots from each lens this weekend. So far there's not much color on the leaves here in Queens, New York this autumn, but they should start turning soon. Can't wait for that! Here's a very good map of Queens County. Enjoy. map Mike

10-16-2007, 05:14 PM	#11
ddhytz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 602	Originally posted by Mike Bokeh No, both shots have had absolutely nothing done to them. ... Did you take those two at different angles? The 18-55 one has more on the left side, see the skeleton. That's why 16-45 one looks like cropped.

10-16-2007, 05:21 PM	#12
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	Originally posted by ddhytz Did you take those two at different angles? The 18-55 one has more on the left side, see the skeleton. That's why 16-45 one looks like cropped. I stood in what I remember to be the same spot (the same opening in the wrought-iron gate in front of the house) and tried as best I could to compose the same image. But no cropping was done. Mike

10-18-2007, 08:19 PM	#14
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608 Original Poster	Originally posted by hinman Mike, Those are very nice pictures. Hmm, now I think you may have to use your DA 18-55 much less. Congratulation on your copy of DA 50-200, I also get a good copy of the lens, and you can see my thoughts along with others in my gear list for DA 50-200 Inexpensive gear with Pentax - Hin's Tech Corner Photozone.de Pentax DA 50-200 review - Hin's Tech Corner I share the similar thought that I can use it for portraits in the 50-70 range, I actually find it very useful from 50-90 range with my boys for indoor Portraits with Pentax DA 50-200 - Hin's Tech Corner Thanks, Hin Thanks, Hinman, but these were just test shots, although I did like the results so far. Hopefully the weather will cooperate, and I'll have the time to do some decent tripod-mounted shots of all the lenses at the same apertures this weekend. Mike

10-19-2007, 05:35 AM	#15
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by MJB DIGITAL so you kind of did an uneven test.... good point, it's hard to be honest if they are at different f stops... anyway 16-45 has reputation of better and sharper lens, I just can't justify it's purchase so I'm sticking with 18-55 which is decent performer especialy stopped down.... Originally posted by ricardobeat Do you mind posting a comparison between the wide angles on both lenses? I'd really apreciate that too, I compared those two in shop and it didn't seem to me as such big difference, but would love to see propper wide angle comparison shot on some landscape or so.... do you have any? pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaase.... Originally posted by Mike Bokeh No, both shots have had absolutely nothing done to them. They were both shot with the color/contrast/sharpness options at zero, 6mp jpeg. I took both pictures from as close to the same spot as possible, although the 18-55 shot was taken about 24 hours before the 16-45 shot. If you look closely at the corner of the porch, it's more exaggerated in the second (16mm) shot. I'm going to try to do a fairly thorough test this weekend between the 18-55 and the 16-45 with the camera on a tripod, and all settings the same. I'm also going to test the 50-200. Mike It's not exactly the same spot, unfortunately... or the framing is bit different, hence it's harder to comapre them... different time of the day, different day, and maybe different framing would affect metering, so I would assing blown out highlights from 18-55 shot to these... but maybe I'm wrong... regards....