Is it worth to sell my two kit for a DA 16-45mm??

telly0050 · 08-01-2011, 08:37 PM

The two kit is of course the 18-55mm, and the 55-300mm.

I use the 18-55mm a lot because of the useful focal range.
I use the 55-300mm not so often because it is heavy and slow focus, but I do use it as portrait lens and telescope objects sometimes.

Is the 16-45mm a huge IQ jump from the kit?
I see some review that compares the sharpness of it and prime lens.
does it worth the selling of the two kit?

I have only the two kit + 35mm f2.4
so if I am to sell the two kit, I will lost a lot of focal length, I am very considerate about the situation I may face.

Anyone who has the lens please give me some input, thank you.

Eagle_Friends · 08-01-2011, 08:56 PM

short answer: yes

liukaitc · 08-01-2011, 09:00 PM

Then u do not have potrait lens.....maybe use ur 35 2.4 for potrait.....

**mgvh** · 08-01-2011, 09:04 PM

I started out in the same situation as you w/ my K-x.
I did not like the results I was getting w/ the 18-55.
I love the 55-300.
I ended up buying a used 16-45 here in the marketplace for $235. It definitely is an improvement in IQ and sharpness, and you will like the extra width. (Those 2mm make a lot of difference...)

BUT, I would sure keep the 55-300. If you sell it, you will probably have to buy one back again later. It's a great lens, and I don't know what else you would get for anywhere near its price to get that kind of length.

telly0050 · 08-02-2011, 10:18 AM

thanks guys for your input.
this is a difficult decision for me.
the budget is definitely not enough if i don't sell the 300mm, may need to save more money.
plus the 18mm kit lens is pretty hard to sell (and it is very cheap too)

pxpaulx · 08-02-2011, 10:59 AM

I would recommend to save and not sell the 55-300mm - it is too good of a lens, even works well as a walk-around, 55mm is decently wide enough on its' own. The 16-45mm is a great lens and well worth getting as your next, but it only replaces the 18-55mm - you'll miss the 55-300mm, unless, well, yeah you'll miss it!

paperbag846 · 08-02-2011, 11:15 AM

I dunno if you should sell.

The 18-55 is a good lens.

I would hate to have no lens at 50 - 55 mm, at least, for portraits.

In other words - I`d prefer to sell the 18-55 and 35mm f2.4 for the 16-46 then sell the 55-300.

northcoastgreg · 08-02-2011, 11:44 AM

If you are dissatisfied with what you are getting with the 18-55 and that lens covers your most used focal lengths, then sell the 55-300 and get the 16-45. There's no point in condemning yourself to unsatisfactory IQ in the focal ranges you use most, merely to retain satisfactory IQ in ranges you use less often. Instead of saving for a 16-45, perhaps it would be wiser to get the 16-45 and save up for the replacement(s) of the 55-300.

paperbag846 · 08-02-2011, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

If you are dissatisfied with what you are getting with the 18-55 and that lens covers your most used focal lengths, then sell the 55-300 and get the 16-45. There's no point in condemning yourself to unsatisfactory IQ in the focal ranges you use most, merely to retain satisfactory IQ in ranges you use less often. Instead of saving for a 16-45, perhaps it would be wiser to get the 16-45 and save up for the replacement(s) of the 55-300.

This is true. There are also inexpensive 55 - 100mm primes on the market (all manual) that would serve as a portrait lens.

Another option I might suggest is the excellent F 70-210, often available for about 100 dollars. It is not as long as the 55-300 (or as fast at 200mm) but it is a pretty good portrait lens in a pinch (very sharp wide open, pretty good bokeh for a consumer zoom, good contrast / colours).

Better options exist but its a good lens for the money.

builttospill · 08-02-2011, 01:09 PM

I haven't used the 55-300, but the 16-45 is much better than the 18-55. I can't tell you what to do with your setup, but I can tell you the 16-45 is a better lens. You'll need to decide if it's worth it, or wait a little longer until the budget allows you to keep the 55-300.

You shouldn't really notice the gap from (16-)45 to 55(-300) if that's the route you take. Any gap you do find can be quickly closed with a few steps forward or back.

K57XR · 08-02-2011, 01:36 PM

I had the 16-45 for a while and like most people said it has a much better IQ than the 18-55. One thing to keep in mind especially if you use the built-in flash, the 16-45 is a physically bigger lens which effectively renders the pop-up flash useless.

Blue · 08-02-2011, 01:38 PM

The 1 thing I don't like about the 16-45 is how it is extended the farthest at 16mm. On the other hand the DA 18-55mm AL WR is a compact lens at both the 18 and 55 being extended only slightly on either and at its shortest at about 35mm.

RioRico · 08-02-2011, 02:20 PM

I bought the DA18-55 (CHEAP!) after I put my initial kit together and it's a decent lens. I haven't used the 16-45 nor 55-300. But from what I've read, and from looking at prices, I would advise NOT selling what you have because 1) the 55-300 is good and 2) the 18-55 will net very little. I have a zillion lenses, mostly manual primes; I have not been tempted by the 16-45. The MY 18-55 SUCKS, GOTTA UPGRADE syndrome is rather profitable for Pentax. Maybe it's a conspiracy...

I do lotsa shooting in the 35-70mm range. I have and don't use a DA18-55 + Tamron 60-300 pair because they require swapping at 55mm, which I detest because it's so inconvenient. (I hang various optical stuff off my DA18-55 -- it's a test-bed.) IMHO an ideal small kit consists of: DA18-250; fast 28-30mm; Fast Fifty; something around 85-105mm; a Raynox closeup adapter. As budget allows, something wider: Sigma 8-16 or 10-20, or Tamron 10-24 (what I have), or Pentax 12-24. Your mileage may vary.

My advice (this is a multiple-choice thang - pick and choose):

* Scan the KIT.LENS CLUB here, see what the 18-55 can do.
* Save up for the 16-45; sacrifice the 18-55 after it arrives.
* Sell both of yours; get a used DA18-250 and a Fast Fifty.
* Look for cheap 24-28-35-50-58-135-200-300mm primes.

kenafein · 08-02-2011, 02:48 PM

I had been avoiding using my kit lens, but I used it last weekend with pretty good results. Have you tried playing with post processing to get the best out of the lens? You may also need a hood. Shame on pentax for not including them with the latest kits.

northcoastgreg · 08-02-2011, 03:56 PM

In the end, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve in your photography. Some types of photography demand more IQ than others. I tried for several years to use the 18-55 in landscape work, but I just could not get what I wanted out of that lens. I finally ended upgrading to the DA 12-24, and I've been thrilled with what that lens has given me. I only wish in retrospect I had skipped the 18-55 and gotten something like the 16-45 instead. But your mileage might differ. Better glass doesn't guarantee better pictures. On the contrary, it will make greater demands on your technique and compositional talent.

08-01-2011, 08:37 PM	#1
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233	Is it worth to sell my two kit for a DA 16-45mm?? The two kit is of course the 18-55mm, and the 55-300mm. I use the 18-55mm a lot because of the useful focal range. I use the 55-300mm not so often because it is heavy and slow focus, but I do use it as portrait lens and telescope objects sometimes. Is the 16-45mm a huge IQ jump from the kit? I see some review that compares the sharpness of it and prime lens. does it worth the selling of the two kit? I have only the two kit + 35mm f2.4 so if I am to sell the two kit, I will lost a lot of focal length, I am very considerate about the situation I may face. Anyone who has the lens please give me some input, thank you.

08-01-2011, 09:04 PM	#4
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,030	Keep the 55-300... I started out in the same situation as you w/ my K-x. I did not like the results I was getting w/ the 18-55. I love the 55-300. I ended up buying a used 16-45 here in the marketplace for $235. It definitely is an improvement in IQ and sharpness, and you will like the extra width. (Those 2mm make a lot of difference...) BUT, I would sure keep the 55-300. If you sell it, you will probably have to buy one back again later. It's a great lens, and I don't know what else you would get for anywhere near its price to get that kind of length.

08-02-2011, 01:36 PM	#11
K57XR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 830	I had the 16-45 for a while and like most people said it has a much better IQ than the 18-55. One thing to keep in mind especially if you use the built-in flash, the 16-45 is a physically bigger lens which effectively renders the pop-up flash useless. Last edited by K57XR; 08-02-2011 at 01:56 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K7 and 18-55 kit lens - priced to sell (Worldwide)	zootog	Sold Items	2	06-21-2011 09:15 PM
Is DA*16-50 worth the price over kit lens?	jatrax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	81	02-28-2011 12:56 AM
Sell or keep my kit lens?	Kitty	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	37	01-01-2011 12:15 AM
For Sale - Sold: Olympus E-PL1 kit ** Sell or Partial Trade for K-7 (US)	cyclingshooter	Sold Items	7	11-03-2010 07:46 AM
Worth buying filter for kit lens?	Hightreason	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	07-19-2010 07:07 PM

08-01-2011, 08:56 PM	#2
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	short answer: yes

08-01-2011, 09:00 PM	#3
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	Then u do not have potrait lens.....maybe use ur 35 2.4 for potrait.....

08-02-2011, 10:18 AM	#5
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233 Original Poster	thanks guys for your input. this is a difficult decision for me. the budget is definitely not enough if i don't sell the 300mm, may need to save more money. plus the 18mm kit lens is pretty hard to sell (and it is very cheap too)

08-02-2011, 10:59 AM	#6
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	I would recommend to save and not sell the 55-300mm - it is too good of a lens, even works well as a walk-around, 55mm is decently wide enough on its' own. The 16-45mm is a great lens and well worth getting as your next, but it only replaces the 18-55mm - you'll miss the 55-300mm, unless, well, yeah you'll miss it!

08-02-2011, 11:15 AM	#7
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I dunno if you should sell. The 18-55 is a good lens. I would hate to have no lens at 50 - 55 mm, at least, for portraits. In other words - I`d prefer to sell the 18-55 and 35mm f2.4 for the 16-46 then sell the 55-300.

08-02-2011, 11:44 AM	#8
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	If you are dissatisfied with what you are getting with the 18-55 and that lens covers your most used focal lengths, then sell the 55-300 and get the 16-45. There's no point in condemning yourself to unsatisfactory IQ in the focal ranges you use most, merely to retain satisfactory IQ in ranges you use less often. Instead of saving for a 16-45, perhaps it would be wiser to get the 16-45 and save up for the replacement(s) of the 55-300.

08-02-2011, 12:02 PM	#9
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by northcoastgreg If you are dissatisfied with what you are getting with the 18-55 and that lens covers your most used focal lengths, then sell the 55-300 and get the 16-45. There's no point in condemning yourself to unsatisfactory IQ in the focal ranges you use most, merely to retain satisfactory IQ in ranges you use less often. Instead of saving for a 16-45, perhaps it would be wiser to get the 16-45 and save up for the replacement(s) of the 55-300. This is true. There are also inexpensive 55 - 100mm primes on the market (all manual) that would serve as a portrait lens. Another option I might suggest is the excellent F 70-210, often available for about 100 dollars. It is not as long as the 55-300 (or as fast at 200mm) but it is a pretty good portrait lens in a pinch (very sharp wide open, pretty good bokeh for a consumer zoom, good contrast / colours). Better options exist but its a good lens for the money.

08-02-2011, 01:09 PM	#10
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	I haven't used the 55-300, but the 16-45 is much better than the 18-55. I can't tell you what to do with your setup, but I can tell you the 16-45 is a better lens. You'll need to decide if it's worth it, or wait a little longer until the budget allows you to keep the 55-300. You shouldn't really notice the gap from (16-)45 to 55(-300) if that's the route you take. Any gap you do find can be quickly closed with a few steps forward or back.

08-02-2011, 01:38 PM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	The 1 thing I don't like about the 16-45 is how it is extended the farthest at 16mm. On the other hand the DA 18-55mm AL WR is a compact lens at both the 18 and 55 being extended only slightly on either and at its shortest at about 35mm.

08-02-2011, 02:20 PM	#13
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I bought the DA18-55 (CHEAP!) after I put my initial kit together and it's a decent lens. I haven't used the 16-45 nor 55-300. But from what I've read, and from looking at prices, I would advise NOT selling what you have because 1) the 55-300 is good and 2) the 18-55 will net very little. I have a zillion lenses, mostly manual primes; I have not been tempted by the 16-45. The MY 18-55 SUCKS, GOTTA UPGRADE syndrome is rather profitable for Pentax. Maybe it's a conspiracy... I do lotsa shooting in the 35-70mm range. I have and don't use a DA18-55 + Tamron 60-300 pair because they require swapping at 55mm, which I detest because it's so inconvenient. (I hang various optical stuff off my DA18-55 -- it's a test-bed.) IMHO an ideal small kit consists of: DA18-250; fast 28-30mm; Fast Fifty; something around 85-105mm; a Raynox closeup adapter. As budget allows, something wider: Sigma 8-16 or 10-20, or Tamron 10-24 (what I have), or Pentax 12-24. Your mileage may vary. My advice (this is a multiple-choice thang - pick and choose): * Scan the KIT.LENS CLUB here, see what the 18-55 can do. * Save up for the 16-45; sacrifice the 18-55 after it arrives. * Sell both of yours; get a used DA18-250 and a Fast Fifty. * Look for cheap 24-28-35-50-58-135-200-300mm primes.

08-02-2011, 02:48 PM	#14
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	I had been avoiding using my kit lens, but I used it last weekend with pretty good results. Have you tried playing with post processing to get the best out of the lens? You may also need a hood. Shame on pentax for not including them with the latest kits.

08-02-2011, 03:56 PM	#15
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	In the end, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve in your photography. Some types of photography demand more IQ than others. I tried for several years to use the 18-55 in landscape work, but I just could not get what I wanted out of that lens. I finally ended upgrading to the DA 12-24, and I've been thrilled with what that lens has given me. I only wish in retrospect I had skipped the 18-55 and gotten something like the 16-45 instead. But your mileage might differ. Better glass doesn't guarantee better pictures. On the contrary, it will make greater demands on your technique and compositional talent.