[Designosophy]

(and I now own 45 Fifty's).

This is an example of why I started the 50mm club. To see the differences between all of these 50mm lenses. Let's see some more 50s!

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/144599-50mm-lens-club.html

[paperbag846]

Yes, the 18-55 is a damn good lens for the money, especially in its midrange at f/8. Yes, the 18-55 can match some primes -- I find it equivalent to a couple old Sigma 24/2.8's at f/4 and beyond. No, the 18-55 just isn't in the same class as the 50/2, nor the much-maligned Meyer Domiplan 50/2.8, nor any other Fifty that I've tried (and I now own 45 Fifty's).

Agree 100%. Kit lens is at it's best in the narrow 24mm-40mm range. At f5.6, the kit can play with primes in these focal ranges. In fact, I sold my A 28mm f2.8 because, while the prime was better, it really wasn't that much better. I stopped both lenses down to f8 mostly anyways. And unlike Rio, I'm a it of a minimalist .

The kit sucks at 50mm (and 18mm), and pentax never really made a *bad* 50mm prime. Just some better than others.

[jsherman999]

18-55 better than the M50/2? Wow ! that's a first for me. I know the M50/2 is not as good as the other prime 50mm. but saying that the 18-55 is better than it, makes me wonder how you guys arrive at that conclusion? have you done any tests that would prove otherwise?

I'll include my surprise at this conclusion.

I think the M 50 f/2 was much better than any kit lens I've ever used.

[jsherman999]

+1 for the M 50/4 macro.

IMO It is the real "sleeper" in the M series lineup.

Tom G

+2

A truly sharp lens, very fun to use.

[Marc Sabatella]

My tests suggested the 50/2 was only slightly better than the 18-55 II at 50mm and f/5.6, and not as good as the 50-200 at 50mm and f/4. But of course, it's two stops faster than the latter, and three stops faster than the former.