31mm Limited vs. DA 16-45mm

tybeck · 01-08-2008, 10:39 PM

This has been bugging me for a while. Is an "excellent" lens like the 31mm Limited really worth the extra money compared to a "very good" lens like the 16-45mm? I ran some quick and dirty test shots to see. These are not ideal conditions, just hand held taking on a K10D (full res, PEF). All pictures were taken with the same settings and processed with RAW Developer with no color adjustment, sharpening or noise reduction, right off the camera. Cropping and scaling was done in Graphic Converter.

I'm still forming a final opinion. For close shots I think the 31mm is certainly sharper than the zoom, not sure if it's worth the price tag though. At long distance I still favor the 31mm, but the difference is much less than close up. In the end you can't go wrong with either one. Original JPEGs are are here. Your thoughts?

Again this is just quick and dirty, average lighting and no tripod.

Top (or Left) - 31mm Limited, Bottom (or Right) - 16-45mm (set to 31mm)
Close up test
f/4.0 1/45 ISO 400

Crop (no scaling)

Top 31mm Limited, Bottom 16-45mm (set to 31mm)
f/4.0 1/125 ISO 200

Crop (Scaled 2X)

Last edited by tybeck; 01-08-2008 at 10:55 PM.

carpents · 01-08-2008, 10:45 PM

Are you comparing sharpness between the two? If so, they are both sharp lenses.

The chromatic aberrations keep me away from the 16-45. Otherwise it is fine. It is also wide, which the 31 is not. And it is a zoom.

tybeck · 01-08-2008, 10:54 PM

I was looking at sharpness and color. Mainly I wanted to see if the 31mm was worth being twice the price of the zoom.

joele · 01-08-2008, 11:32 PM

- Can the 16-45 do f1.8?
- Vignetting in a daylight situation?
- Corner crops?
- CA?
- build quality?

They are both very good lenses imo, but the 31 certainly has advantages that go beyond sharpness..

That said, I bought the FA35 as I felt it had the right balance of features for me.. ;-)

roentarre · 01-09-2008, 12:40 AM

As people have stated, Da 18-55 will do a better job in the hands of great photographers. Lenses do not matter at all.

**David** · 01-09-2008, 02:10 AM

You must be kidding. An Fa31mm Limited in the hands of a great photographer will do the job it's built for; produce superb results. The kit lens will produce kit lens results maximized by the photographer.

In any case why would anyone try to compare a fixed focal length limited lens to a kit zoom

David:ugh:

creampuff · 01-09-2008, 03:23 AM

In the above comparisons, the DA 16-45mm is used at it's maximum aperture while at f/4, the FA 31mm is already stopped down. We all know the maximum resolution of a lens isn't usually at it's widest aperture, so even if both lenses are shooting at the same focal length, at f/4 the FA 31mm already wins hands down. That said, the zoom has acquitted itself quite nicely in the above comparative shots.

Kguru · 01-09-2008, 03:52 AM

What's the purpose of driving to work: to get to work, right?
Some pay 25K for a Corolla while others pay 65K for a BMW. The BMW drivers don't arrive at work twice as happy, but they seldom regret buying

Finn · 01-09-2008, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Kguru

What's the purpose of driving to work: to get to work, right?
But some pay 25K for a Corolla while others pay 65K for a BMW. The BMW drivers get a little higher pleasure out of the driving but they don't arrive at work twice as happy

Well, yes and no. Are the photos you print REALLY the only reason you do photography? Is there nothing to be said for the process of photography? For being out there, just you and the camera, visualizing and capturing a scene?

I love using the FA 31, and yes, it does make me twice as happy as the 16-45 when I use it.

Kguru · 01-09-2008, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Finn

I love using the FA 31, and yes, it does make me twice as happy as the 16-45 when I use it.

Finn, I have edited my post, to reflect more what I meant.
And for you, if it does make you twice as happy ... all the better

Nesster · 01-09-2008, 07:26 AM

I see the close up / medium distance results you got are consistent with what I've found comparing the 16-45 to the 43. I'm intrigued with the mountain crop though - the zoom seems clearer to me than the 31.

Also, in exposure / tonal range comparison your results are consistent with what I've seen with the 43 - while the 16-45 gives the impression of greater range, in fact the prime has the greater range. The zoom exposure for whatever reason biases towards a darker image, at least on the digital cameras.

However, pixel peeping aside both lenses make sense out of the scenes for me, though they tell silghtly different stories. There's always the question of how much micro detail is needed for a good photo - but for me, while more detail = more depth to image, if it's at the expense of sense in the photograph, the less detailed lens is better. (I'm thinking of lenses that tend to produce chaotic seeming photos unless you really work at composition and exposure)

gavinhw · 01-09-2008, 09:55 AM

Thanks for the quick comparo.

I too was curious about how well the DA 16-45mm acquitted itself. Of couse, as we all know, the FA 31 and the DA 16-45mm serve different purposes.

-Gavin

Not Registered · 01-09-2008, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by David

In any case why would anyone try to compare a fixed focal length limited lens to a kit zoom

David:ugh:

To justify a purchase and/or help others (or himself) to choose which one to buy.

A good photographer with a kit lens can have superb results under the right conditions. IMO a good lens extends the range for optimal conditions. A good lens can also make a difference (in terms of boke, DOF, sharpness at larger apertures...), but a good lens in bad hands can do nothing superb.

**barondla** · 01-09-2008, 10:49 AM

A pro can take a good pic with any lens. Even a pro can't make a shot with the 18-55 or the 16-45 look like a shot with the 31. They look different. Neither zoom has the bokeh or 3D look of the 31. I have all three. Darn LBA.
thanks
barondla

Tom M · 01-09-2008, 11:07 AM

OK - there is no comparison between the lenses.

Here's why the 16-45 is more versatile however.. As a walk-around lens it will allow far more shots than the fixed focal length 31mm.. Trust me, I've done it.

Sometimes you just can't fit the subject in the frame at 31mm - it's that simple. Other times, you can't get the subject large enough in the frame at 31mm. Again, the 16-45 allows for more shots..

Does that mean it's a better lens? No. Just more versatile. The 31mm will produce better images, though fewer images.

As an example, this past August I was in Granada. Walking along the tiny side streets with my 28mm was fun, though, I had to switch over to the 16-45 more than I cared so I retired the 28 for the remaining of the trip. I was able to frame my shots and actually get certain shots with the 16-45 that I could not get with a 31 or 28, etc.

01-08-2008, 10:39 PM	#1
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452	31mm Limited vs. DA 16-45mm This has been bugging me for a while. Is an "excellent" lens like the 31mm Limited really worth the extra money compared to a "very good" lens like the 16-45mm? I ran some quick and dirty test shots to see. These are not ideal conditions, just hand held taking on a K10D (full res, PEF). All pictures were taken with the same settings and processed with RAW Developer with no color adjustment, sharpening or noise reduction, right off the camera. Cropping and scaling was done in Graphic Converter. I'm still forming a final opinion. For close shots I think the 31mm is certainly sharper than the zoom, not sure if it's worth the price tag though. At long distance I still favor the 31mm, but the difference is much less than close up. In the end you can't go wrong with either one. Original JPEGs are are here. Your thoughts? Again this is just quick and dirty, average lighting and no tripod. Top (or Left) - 31mm Limited, Bottom (or Right) - 16-45mm (set to 31mm) Close up test f/4.0 1/45 ISO 400 Crop (no scaling) Top 31mm Limited, Bottom 16-45mm (set to 31mm) f/4.0 1/125 ISO 200 Crop (Scaled 2X) Last edited by tybeck; 01-08-2008 at 10:55 PM.

01-09-2008, 03:52 AM	#8
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	What's the purpose of driving to work: to get to work, right? Some pay 25K for a Corolla while others pay 65K for a BMW. The BMW drivers don't arrive at work twice as happy, but they seldom regret buying Last edited by Kguru; 01-09-2008 at 07:13 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA 31mm limited, FA 43mm limited, 40mm F2.8	Sheridan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	07-28-2010 12:30 PM
To whom I sold my 31mm limited to..	scribble	General Talk	0	11-16-2007 11:08 PM
31mm Limited	benjikan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	04-09-2007 09:22 PM

01-08-2008, 10:45 PM	#2
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Are you comparing sharpness between the two? If so, they are both sharp lenses. The chromatic aberrations keep me away from the 16-45. Otherwise it is fine. It is also wide, which the 31 is not. And it is a zoom.

01-08-2008, 10:54 PM	#3
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452 Original Poster	I was looking at sharpness and color. Mainly I wanted to see if the 31mm was worth being twice the price of the zoom.

01-08-2008, 11:32 PM	#4
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	- Can the 16-45 do f1.8? - Vignetting in a daylight situation? - Corner crops? - CA? - build quality? They are both very good lenses imo, but the 31 certainly has advantages that go beyond sharpness.. That said, I bought the FA35 as I felt it had the right balance of features for me.. ;-)

01-09-2008, 12:40 AM	#5
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	As people have stated, Da 18-55 will do a better job in the hands of great photographers. Lenses do not matter at all.

01-09-2008, 02:10 AM	#6
David Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 347	You must be kidding. An Fa31mm Limited in the hands of a great photographer will do the job it's built for; produce superb results. The kit lens will produce kit lens results maximized by the photographer. In any case why would anyone try to compare a fixed focal length limited lens to a kit zoom David:ugh:

01-09-2008, 03:23 AM	#7
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	In the above comparisons, the DA 16-45mm is used at it's maximum aperture while at f/4, the FA 31mm is already stopped down. We all know the maximum resolution of a lens isn't usually at it's widest aperture, so even if both lenses are shooting at the same focal length, at f/4 the FA 31mm already wins hands down. That said, the zoom has acquitted itself quite nicely in the above comparative shots.

01-09-2008, 06:10 AM	#9
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	Originally posted by Kguru What's the purpose of driving to work: to get to work, right? But some pay 25K for a Corolla while others pay 65K for a BMW. The BMW drivers get a little higher pleasure out of the driving but they don't arrive at work twice as happy Well, yes and no. Are the photos you print REALLY the only reason you do photography? Is there nothing to be said for the process of photography? For being out there, just you and the camera, visualizing and capturing a scene? I love using the FA 31, and yes, it does make me twice as happy as the 16-45 when I use it.

01-09-2008, 07:17 AM	#10
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	Originally posted by Finn I love using the FA 31, and yes, it does make me twice as happy as the 16-45 when I use it. Finn, I have edited my post, to reflect more what I meant. And for you, if it does make you twice as happy ... all the better

01-09-2008, 07:26 AM	#11
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	I see the close up / medium distance results you got are consistent with what I've found comparing the 16-45 to the 43. I'm intrigued with the mountain crop though - the zoom seems clearer to me than the 31. Also, in exposure / tonal range comparison your results are consistent with what I've seen with the 43 - while the 16-45 gives the impression of greater range, in fact the prime has the greater range. The zoom exposure for whatever reason biases towards a darker image, at least on the digital cameras. However, pixel peeping aside both lenses make sense out of the scenes for me, though they tell silghtly different stories. There's always the question of how much micro detail is needed for a good photo - but for me, while more detail = more depth to image, if it's at the expense of sense in the photograph, the less detailed lens is better. (I'm thinking of lenses that tend to produce chaotic seeming photos unless you really work at composition and exposure)

01-09-2008, 09:55 AM	#12
gavinhw Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 145	Thanks for the quick comparo. I too was curious about how well the DA 16-45mm acquitted itself. Of couse, as we all know, the FA 31 and the DA 16-45mm serve different purposes. -Gavin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2008, 10:12 AM	#13
Not Registered Guest	Originally posted by David In any case why would anyone try to compare a fixed focal length limited lens to a kit zoom David:ugh: To justify a purchase and/or help others (or himself) to choose which one to buy. A good photographer with a kit lens can have superb results under the right conditions. IMO a good lens extends the range for optimal conditions. A good lens can also make a difference (in terms of boke, DOF, sharpness at larger apertures...), but a good lens in bad hands can do nothing superb.

01-09-2008, 10:49 AM	#14
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,713	A pro can take a good pic with any lens. Even a pro can't make a shot with the 18-55 or the 16-45 look like a shot with the 31. They look different. Neither zoom has the bokeh or 3D look of the 31. I have all three. Darn LBA. thanks barondla

01-09-2008, 11:07 AM	#15
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	OK - there is no comparison between the lenses. Here's why the 16-45 is more versatile however.. As a walk-around lens it will allow far more shots than the fixed focal length 31mm.. Trust me, I've done it. Sometimes you just can't fit the subject in the frame at 31mm - it's that simple. Other times, you can't get the subject large enough in the frame at 31mm. Again, the 16-45 allows for more shots.. Does that mean it's a better lens? No. Just more versatile. The 31mm will produce better images, though fewer images. As an example, this past August I was in Granada. Walking along the tiny side streets with my 28mm was fun, though, I had to switch over to the 16-45 more than I cared so I retired the 28 for the remaining of the trip. I was able to frame my shots and actually get certain shots with the 16-45 that I could not get with a 31 or 28, etc.