Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**Ash** · 12-28-2007, 01:55 PM

For a kit lens, I had low expectations of its performance wide open.
Perhaps this snapshot was taken in optimal light conditions, but I'm quite pleased with its sharpness wide open (f/4.0) at 34mm. Anyone comment on their experience with shooting wide open on this lens?

This may have been discussed at length previously, so please excuse the repetition. I'd just like to know the significant advantages in IQ that the DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50 may have to the DA 18-55.

Last edited by Ash; 12-31-2007 at 01:18 PM.

Ed in GA · 12-28-2007, 02:16 PM

18mm @ f/3.5, 1/350 & ISO200. Un cropped, shot in jpg and just the way it came from the K100D with no post processing of any kind.

**pentagor** · 12-28-2007, 02:27 PM

F/4.5, 1/6s, ISO200 - no tripod.

creampuff · 12-28-2007, 04:06 PM

The 2mm difference between the 16mm & 18mm on the wide end is quite a noticeable difference. That said, the 18-55mm kit does give decent results (definitely better than Canikon's kit lenses) but can suffer a little light falloff at the corners at 18mm and wide open.

Mechan1k · 12-31-2007, 06:18 AM

Here's a few shots

f/5.6 at 55mm : ISO400 : 1/60sec : handheld with SR on

f/3.5 at 18mm : ISO100 : 1/250sec : handheld with SR on

CJSpangler · 12-31-2007, 09:02 AM

I imagine being a faster lense and higher quality it will definately be extremely noticeable taking photos of people in doors. The difference between the FA 1.4 and the kit lense is extremely noticeable when shooting people and indoors.

Out doors the kit lense does a great job, which is the main reason why I have not purchased a wide angle lense to add to my LBA. I use it for the 18mm, then anything else I would use the FA 1.4, then so on.

I took this with the kit lense the day I got the k10d in the mail (UPS comes at 6sh so it was already dark out). I did not have a tripod so I just left it on a old wooden bench to help avoid the shake for the long exposure. I think the kit lense performed very well.

18mm, 20 sec, f/8 (just crop on jpg right out of camera)

**Ash** · 12-31-2007, 01:05 PM

Thanks all for your input.

Simon, your shots show off the kit lens's ability beautifully. But I couldn't compare the kit lens to the FA 50/1.4, Chris. It's just in a different league.

What I guess I'm more interested in is a consensus on the benefits of upgrading the kit lens to the DA 16-45 (or DA* 16-50). I do find myself going to 55mm a lot with the kit lens, but would be happier if the same shots taken at 45mm with the 16-45 came out nicer (whatever that means...)

What IQ advantages does the 16-45 have over the kit lens, especially at wider apertures? At 16mm is there large CA, vignetting or loss of sharpness? That would help me decide whether to save up for this lens as the walkaround/landscape lens.

I'm sure the DA* 16-50 is a great lens, but is it a significant leap from the 16-45?
Thanks for all your opinions.

CJSpangler · 12-31-2007, 09:39 PM

Ash,

I am currently having similar thoughts regarding the kit lense for wide angle and if it is worth purchasing a new/better? walk around lense. It seems many have found that for under 200 dollars the FA 1.4 is practically the best value/extremely good performance to replace the 50ish mm part of the kit lense. While the wide angle there is nothing really in a sweet price point that offers fantastic, noticeable results. Also, there are a bunch of options going wide for the k10d, the DA* 16-50, the 16-45, 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and the handfull of fixed lenses like the 31, 24 etc. Its a tough call and involves a lot of thought as all of these a priced a wallet or two above what the FA 50 1.4 did for replacing the other end of the kit.

Keep us updated on your decision as I am sure the information will be valuable to the rest of us following a similar path.

creampuff · 12-31-2007, 09:59 PM

I have both the 16-45 and the 18-55. The 16-45 is good indoors and definitely better than the kit lens at the wide end. The constant f/4 max aperture of the 16-45 is useful, esp if you use studio setups. It is a fine lens in it's own right but one that requires putting in some time to understand it's characteristics (mine underexposes a little). Nonetheless, it gives me great results which is one reason why I don't have plans for the more expensive DA*16-50.

Here are some recent shots with the 16-45.

**Ash** · 12-31-2007, 10:14 PM

Good point Chris,

The FA 50/1.4 is no doubt a must-have. Didn't take me long to 'feel the need' and buy the lens with money I didn't have at the time. But now I'm at least trying to keep LBA in check.

Dennis, I see what you mean. The 16-45 is a serous consideration, although at more than AUD$500 I have to really save up for something I'm not making money out of...

Mechan1k · 01-01-2008, 01:50 AM

Ash .... I agree about it not being able to compare with the FA50 ... I have just brought all my FA50 images into work with me ... will be posting many up later on from Xmas (as I got it for Xmas) ... and I can tell you ... it's a superb lens indeed.

The DA 18-55 is versatile in the fact that it is a zoom lens .. whereas the FA50 is fixed ... although with a bit of moving around ... it can be accommodated for many shots.

**Ash** · 01-02-2008, 02:06 AM

After doing some research, it's clear the overwhelming consensus on the 16-45 is positive, both economically and optically, and clearly a good upgrade from the kit lens.

A few erraneous negative sentiments on the lens were posted on forums, mainly from Canon users...

But I'm personally convinced, it's worth the cost, but I'm going to look for one second hand - from someone who's upgrading to the DA* 16-50 or the like....

Anyone in that position?
A colleague wants to offload his for a good price ($275) but it doesn't have the original lens hood (can't find a replacement anywhere). So I'll wait for another one to come on....

Cheers.

Pentaxtic · 01-02-2008, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

I have both the 16-45 and the 18-55. The 16-45 is good indoors and definitely better than the kit lens at the wide end. The constant f/4 max aperture of the 16-45 is useful, esp if you use studio setups. It is a fine lens in it's own right but one that requires putting in some time to understand it's characteristics (mine underexposes a little). Nonetheless, it gives me great results which is one reason why I don't have plans for the more expensive DA*16-50.

Here are some recent shots with the 16-45.

Your pictures are fantastic!
Also have to tell you I like your IR stuff too!

creampuff · 01-02-2008, 11:59 AM

Pentaxtic, many thanks for the kind comments.

**NaClH2O** · 01-02-2008, 07:25 PM

Simon I can't see your shots

NaCl(maybe I'm not pure of heart :cries: )H2O

12-28-2007, 01:55 PM	#1
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	*DA 18-55 vs. DA 16-45 & DA 16-50 wide open** For a kit lens, I had low expectations of its performance wide open. Perhaps this snapshot was taken in optimal light conditions, but I'm quite pleased with its sharpness wide open (f/4.0) at 34mm. Anyone comment on their experience with shooting wide open on this lens? This may have been discussed at length previously, so please excuse the repetition. I'd just like to know the significant advantages in IQ that the DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50 may have to the DA 18-55. Last edited by Ash; 12-31-2007 at 01:18 PM.

12-28-2007, 02:16 PM	#2
Ed in GA Guest	18mm @ f/3.5, 1/350 & ISO200. Un cropped, shot in jpg and just the way it came from the K100D with no post processing of any kind. Last edited by Ed in GA; 12-28-2007 at 06:32 PM.

12-31-2007, 09:59 PM	#9
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	I have both the 16-45 and the 18-55. The 16-45 is good indoors and definitely better than the kit lens at the wide end. The constant f/4 max aperture of the 16-45 is useful, esp if you use studio setups. It is a fine lens in it's own right but one that requires putting in some time to understand it's characteristics (mine underexposes a little). Nonetheless, it gives me great results which is one reason why I don't have plans for the more expensive DA16-50. Here are some recent shots with the 16-45. Last edited by creampuff; 12-31-2007 at 10:06 PM.*

12-31-2007, 10:14 PM	#10
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	*DA 18-55 vs. DA 16-45 & DA 16-50** Good point Chris, The FA 50/1.4 is no doubt a must-have. Didn't take me long to 'feel the need' and buy the lens with money I didn't have at the time. But now I'm at least trying to keep LBA in check. Dennis, I see what you mean. The 16-45 is a serous consideration, although at more than AUD$500 I have to really save up for something I'm not making money out of...

01-02-2008, 02:06 AM	#12
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Making the move to DA 16-45 After doing some research, it's clear the overwhelming consensus on the 16-45 is positive, both economically and optically, and clearly a good upgrade from the kit lens. A few erraneous negative sentiments on the lens were posted on forums, mainly from Canon users... But I'm personally convinced, it's worth the cost, but I'm going to look for one second hand - from someone who's upgrading to the DA* 16-50 or the like.... Anyone in that position? A colleague wants to offload his for a good price ($275) but it doesn't have the original lens hood (can't find a replacement anywhere). So I'll wait for another one to come on.... Cheers.

12-28-2007, 02:27 PM	#3
pentagor Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia Posts: 495	F/4.5, 1/6s, ISO200 - no tripod.

12-28-2007, 04:06 PM	#4
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	The 2mm difference between the 16mm & 18mm on the wide end is quite a noticeable difference. That said, the 18-55mm kit does give decent results (definitely better than Canikon's kit lenses) but can suffer a little light falloff at the corners at 18mm and wide open.

12-31-2007, 06:18 AM	#5
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	Here's a few shots f/5.6 at 55mm : ISO400 : 1/60sec : handheld with SR on f/3.5 at 18mm : ISO100 : 1/250sec : handheld with SR on

12-31-2007, 09:02 AM	#6
CJSpangler Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New Jersey, US Posts: 154	I imagine being a faster lense and higher quality it will definately be extremely noticeable taking photos of people in doors. The difference between the FA 1.4 and the kit lense is extremely noticeable when shooting people and indoors. Out doors the kit lense does a great job, which is the main reason why I have not purchased a wide angle lense to add to my LBA. I use it for the 18mm, then anything else I would use the FA 1.4, then so on. I took this with the kit lense the day I got the k10d in the mail (UPS comes at 6sh so it was already dark out). I did not have a tripod so I just left it on a old wooden bench to help avoid the shake for the long exposure. I think the kit lense performed very well. 18mm, 20 sec, f/8 (just crop on jpg right out of camera)

12-31-2007, 01:05 PM	#7
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Thanks all for your input. Simon, your shots show off the kit lens's ability beautifully. But I couldn't compare the kit lens to the FA 50/1.4, Chris. It's just in a different league. What I guess I'm more interested in is a consensus on the benefits of upgrading the kit lens to the DA 16-45 (or DA* 16-50). I do find myself going to 55mm a lot with the kit lens, but would be happier if the same shots taken at 45mm with the 16-45 came out nicer (whatever that means...) What IQ advantages does the 16-45 have over the kit lens, especially at wider apertures? At 16mm is there large CA, vignetting or loss of sharpness? That would help me decide whether to save up for this lens as the walkaround/landscape lens. I'm sure the DA* 16-50 is a great lens, but is it a significant leap from the 16-45? Thanks for all your opinions.

12-31-2007, 09:39 PM	#8
CJSpangler Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New Jersey, US Posts: 154	Ash, I am currently having similar thoughts regarding the kit lense for wide angle and if it is worth purchasing a new/better? walk around lense. It seems many have found that for under 200 dollars the FA 1.4 is practically the best value/extremely good performance to replace the 50ish mm part of the kit lense. While the wide angle there is nothing really in a sweet price point that offers fantastic, noticeable results. Also, there are a bunch of options going wide for the k10d, the DA* 16-50, the 16-45, 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and the handfull of fixed lenses like the 31, 24 etc. Its a tough call and involves a lot of thought as all of these a priced a wallet or two above what the FA 50 1.4 did for replacing the other end of the kit. Keep us updated on your decision as I am sure the information will be valuable to the rest of us following a similar path.

01-01-2008, 01:50 AM	#11
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	Ash .... I agree about it not being able to compare with the FA50 ... I have just brought all my FA50 images into work with me ... will be posting many up later on from Xmas (as I got it for Xmas) ... and I can tell you ... it's a superb lens indeed. The DA 18-55 is versatile in the fact that it is a zoom lens .. whereas the FA50 is fixed ... although with a bit of moving around ... it can be accommodated for many shots.

01-02-2008, 04:32 AM	#13
Pentaxtic Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Originally posted by creampuff I have both the 16-45 and the 18-55. The 16-45 is good indoors and definitely better than the kit lens at the wide end. The constant f/4 max aperture of the 16-45 is useful, esp if you use studio setups. It is a fine lens in it's own right but one that requires putting in some time to understand it's characteristics (mine underexposes a little). Nonetheless, it gives me great results which is one reason why I don't have plans for the more expensive DA*16-50. Here are some recent shots with the 16-45. Your pictures are fantastic! Also have to tell you I like your IR stuff too!

01-02-2008, 11:59 AM	#14
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Pentaxtic, many thanks for the kind comments.

01-02-2008, 07:25 PM	#15
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Simon I can't see your shots NaCl(maybe I'm not pure of heart :cries: )H2O

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Some wide open Tulips	JeffJS	Post Your Photos!	6	04-18-2010 07:37 AM
Landscape Wide Open Garden	rustynail925	Post Your Photos!	2	03-09-2010 08:22 AM
77/1.8 wide open...	igor	Post Your Photos!	14	08-17-2009 05:36 AM
F- 50mm 1.7 Wide Open	bwield	Post Your Photos!	2	07-08-2009 12:46 PM
Which 50/1.4 is best wide open?	Big I	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	08-05-2008 09:23 AM

DA 18-55 wide open

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!