[PJ1]

Going for something that gives you f2.8 nmakes sense. But the 18-55 is a very good lens. I wouldn't be without mine as a back up when I might want something with that range but I don't want to carry something bigger.

[repaap]

I happen to have DA*16-50. I have had 18-55 and Tokina 20-35/2.8. When I have tried all ofthese lenses side to side, stopped down there is not much of difference. One might want to say many things about many lenses. I’m lusting after that new 16-50, why? Because I have had so much good times with my SDM version. (My SDM is still working and I bought mine 2009).

My copy is sharp from 16 and wide open, but from 40-> it looses sharpness.

It does flare, but when you shoot careful, you can get nice starburst, and colour rendering is warmer too than ’kit lens’ has. Many big + things. Now toumight end up in trouble with SDM and it is big. But to me it never really felt ’that’ big as many have said.

There are other options too but to me 2.8 and AW sealing was big factors. Snd I have put it throught rain and snow and storm with both of those were combined…

Then again. Youmight enjoysomething like 16-85 or even 18-135(16 is much wider!).

[ramseybuckeye]

First ask what are you shooting and what do you want to improve upon. There is a free software, that unfortunately I can’t think of the name right now, that can analyze all of the photos on your computer to see what you are using the most. That could be helpful, or not so much. I had an 18-55 for a short time and did not use it much, I got a 18-135 and really liked it, but then I wanted something to use in lower light, got the Sigma 17-50 2.8, and really liked it, even though you really couldn’t use it a 2.8. Then a couple of years ago we were planning a trip to England in October, I had a need for something weather sealed and faster than the 18-135, so I bought a 20-40. I was so happy with the IQ from the 20-40 that I never used the Sigma again. It’s not just sharpness, it’s color, contrast, just the look of the photos. But before you change anything ask what are your goals.

[savoche]

is there a good reason to "upgrade?"

If the only reason to ask is that you've read that another lens is better, then no, there is no good reason to upgrade. The 18-55 is a nice lens, so unless you find it to limit you in any way you should probably stick with it for a while longer.

That said, a lot of us don't need a good reason to upgrade - we'll jump at any reason A lot of lenses will be better than the 18-55, but "better" usually comes at a cost - and sometimes for very little return. E.g. if your current lens is sharp enough you will gain little from an even sharper lens. If you mainly shoot landscapes you will probably not use the wider aperture of a faster lens much.

Some alternatives, and the way I look at them:
- Sigma/Tamron 17-50/2.8: Sharper and with wider max aperture. The Tamron lacks an internal focus motor (like the 18-55) if that's of importance to you.
- Pentax 16-50/2.8: Much the same as the above. 16mm is getting usefully wide if you like wide angle.
- Pentax 18-135: Better image quality than the 18-55 and considerably longer reach. A nice allround lens.
- Pentax 16-85: Well known for its image quality, and a very useful zoom range IMO. Probably my pick if I needed an APS-C zoom right now (but it ain't cheap).
- Pentax 20-40: Another very well liked lens, and quite compact. f/2.8 at the wide end. The main downside (IMO) is the limited zoom range.

The downside with them all (to a varying degree) is more bulk and weight - and cost. The least expensive option is probably the Tamron if you can find it.

An alternative could be, as others have suggested, to supplement with a few prime lenses. Your F50/1.7 is an excellent lens, and you could add something like a DA L 35/2.4 if you want something budget friendly that's a bit wider. This will leave you with a decent standard zoom for general use and a few very good primes for "special" cases (typically if you need a wider aperture or ultimate sharpness).

Yet another alternative is to supplement with more range, e.g. the well liked DA 55-300 PLM for more reach, or something on the wide end if that suits you better.

So no, there is no good reason to upgrade - or supplement - but there are always reasons

[jersey]

I was using 18-55 WR (screwdriver) for long time. It was and still is decent lens. Currently I am using Sigma 17-50 and wondering if I should keep. But that was due to specific needs: I needed fast, wide lens for indoor shooting and 15Ltd was too slow and Sigma was cheapest alternative (new). I am wondering if I need 16-50 cause I want WR lens due to climate in Poland (rain and snow) while preserving the fast aperture.


But if you do not have some specific needs then frankly in my opinion you do not "need" to upgrade. 18-55 is a decent lens, not the best one out there of course, but decent. If you do not find it lacking then spend money on something else. Get a beer, go on girls and if you want to spend on lens get something you do not have.

[othar]

You need to upgrade if the kit lens prevents you from taking pictures you try to take (night sky without astrotracer comes to mind).
Otherwise I rather say you just want to upgrade

I have replaced my DAL 18-55mm WR lens as my kit lens with the F 35-70mm lens for most occasions, because I prefer the focal range on my K-3 and the F lens is sharper at the overlapping focal lengths.
That said I still use the 18-55mm lens occasionally, because it is still my only WR lens and it is the widest non-fisheye lens I own. While it has its flaws I don't see me replacing it anytime soon, because it performs reasonably well for the purposes I intend it for.

[Madaboutpix]

Yes, my entry into the Pentax system was with the DA18-55 WR kitzoom on the K-7. As others will have hinted, and as far as cheap kitzooms go, not the worst of its kind out there. Stopped down a bit, actually pretty useable and useful from 18 mm to standard FL, but honestly nothing to write home about at the long end. Metal mount, hood included, reasonably weather-sealed. Took my first 100 or 150 (Pentax digital) photos that I considered worthwhile with it.

That said, with each more serious lens that I added to my kit, beginning with the DA55-300, which isn't an IQ demon itself, I couldn't help noticing how significantly better than the kitzoom those lenses were. Once I had picked up the DA35 Macro and DA15 Limiteds, I basically stopped reaching for the DA18-55 WR at all, the main reason I kept it being its WR feature. Though little surprise given the physics, the cheapest lens in the Pentax line-up, the DA50 prime, blows the kiltzoom out of the water and halfway to the moon at 50 mm, it's ridiculous. Can you take cool photos with your kitzoom? Yeah, by all means you can, but do yourself the favour at some point to explore how much more your camera can do with real glass.

---

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 07-26-2021 at 03:07 AM. Reason: Nuance, flow.

[Paul the Sunman]

The 18-135 and especially the 16-85 are both useful steps up from the 18-55, but "need" is too strong a word.

[Serkevan]

Yeah, by all means you can, but do yourself the favour at some point to explore how much more your camera can do with real glass.

Exactly... When I went from the 18-55 WR to the Tamron 17-50/2.8 it was a marked improvement in both 50mm sorta-portrait shots that I could now do with much better subject separation. And when I started using primes (mostly after moving to the K-1, but I had already started using some on the K-7) it was a "now we're talking" revelation .

Like you say, the 18-55 WR isn't bad, it's just limited (and not in a FA 77 way) in what it can do.

[Joe Schmoo]

Yeah, I know there's no good answer. I do know how to use Google, as well as the search function here on the forum. But, It's Sunday night, I did some shooting today, and sometimes Google+Forum+eBay aren't your friend.

By way of background, I have the DA 18-55 I "kit lens." Seems decent to me. Seems like a nicer piece of glass than its counterpart from Canon. I don't know from Nikon (or Sony or Fuji...). But LBS is a thing, and while I'm in semi-remission, getting the announcement from Ricoh about the revised 16-50 put me looking for the current one. Sorta surprised to find that that one isn't so highly regarded. That led to the comparison of that vs the Sigma and Tamron 17-50s. Which led to the search for used prices on the two aftermarket lenses.

The Tamron is pretty scarce used, but still available new. The Sigma is available new and used, but is (as when new) more than the Tamron. The reviews say what they say. So, if you own/owned one of either of these "alternatives," and still have it, broke it, gave it away, sold it, or dropped it in the lake, and if you got one to replace the Pentax 18-55, what do you say? Other than as a result of boredom or a promiscuous checkbook (which I hope to not have), is there a good reason to "upgrade?"

Thanks much, hope you enjoyed the weekend and good luck on the coming week.

One more vote for the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Good IQ, light and affordable, especially used. And so is the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

[MXLX]

Question for the advocates of the 16-85: The issue on these seems to be a failure of the AF motor in the lens. **I may have been confusing this lens with the 16-50 on the failure issue.
I'm not as versed on the mechanics of this as I should be; if this lens sufferes such a failure, is it convertible to screw drive?

[ehrwien]

First ask what are you shooting and what do you want to improve upon. There is a free software, that unfortunately I can’t think of the name right now, that can analyze all of the photos on your computer to see what you are using the most. That could be helpful, or not so much.

That sounds like exposureplot ExposurePlot jpg exif lens length analyzer for photographers

[ehrwien]

Question for the advocates of the 16-85: The issue on these seems to be a failure of the AF motor in the lens. **I may have been confusing this lens with the 16-50 on the failure issue.
I'm not as versed on the mechanics of this as I should be; if this lens sufferes such a failure, is it convertible to screw drive?

I think you're referring to the (old) Pentax DA* 16-50 SDM. The SDM is the culprit, a kind of motor that has had some failures in different lenses. As far as I know, the 16-50 can be converted to screwdrive using an older body. There's a helpful thread here that has all the info you need to tackle this How To: Convert SDM to ScrewDrive + Video - PentaxForums.com

Yes, the 16-85 is a different lens and has a DC focus motor which does not suffer from failure as the SDM motors do (of course it could still fail, but if so you would be extremely unlucky considering the number of reports of failures here)

[jddwoods]

Question for the advocates of the 16-85: The issue on these seems to be a failure of the AF motor in the lens. **I may have been confusing this lens with the 16-50 on the failure issue.
I'm not as versed on the mechanics of this as I should be; if this lens sufferes such a failure, is it convertible to screw drive?

The 16-85 is not able to be converted to screwdrive. I am not aware of this lens having autofocus reliability issues. Mine has very reliable autofocus. This lens has DC motor, not SDM which as far as I am aware has a very good reliability record. The older DA* 16-50 and DA 17-70 have SDM motors and have had complaints regarding autofocus reliability issues.

[Bertrand3000]

I recommend as high end zoom either the DA 16-85, or the Sigma 17-50, depending if you value more versatility and weather resistance, or aperture. Or you do like me: get both.

Other good possibilities are DA 16-45 (in good shape) or DA 18-135.