Is It Worth to pay extra $125?

jadem · 04-07-2009, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by shiestmiester

I have a DAII 18-55 still under warranty i'm willing to let go of for $85. I have been happy with this lens but bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. If you need the speed I highly recommend this lens. If you need a nice cheap walkaround, the kit is a good option. I have no experience with 16-45 so no comment.

Depends on your application.

~T

Are you still willing to sell your kit lens shiestmiester?

**Skewed** · 04-08-2009, 01:08 PM

Maybe I got a bad copy of the 18-55 II, but after a week of using it with the K20D (I bought the kit) I ordered the 16-45, which I'm very happy with. The 18-55 II is fine for casual shooting, but can't capture full detail and color in a busy landscape at 55mm, especially at the borders, on the K20D's 14mp sensor. As someone else said, you can notice a difference as soon as you look through the viewfinder, which is much brighter with 16-45. The colors, contrast and sharpness are all noticeably better with the 16-45; the improvement is worth the money to me.

shutterbob · 04-08-2009, 03:12 PM

I side with all of those who favor the DA 16-45. Overall this lens is a terrific performer and photos are consistently sharper than the 18-55. After getting the 16-45 3 years ago, I have NEVER put the 18-55 back on the camera. With the kit lens, I was always "almost satisfied" with my photos; almost just doesn't cut it anymore. The 16-45 is remarkably close to a prime in contrast, sharpness, and clarity. It is without a doubt worth the difference.

jadem · 04-10-2009, 01:10 AM

Thanks guys for all your inputs. I appreciate all your suggestions. I decided to go for the 16-45. in fact I just paid a 16-46-5 in one of our forum members. Just waiting for it to be shipped.

qksilver · 04-10-2009, 01:51 AM

Ive had all 3 lenses in this range, the 18-55 16-45 and the 16-50. the 16-45 is by far the best bang for the buck. the 16-50 is better but much more expensive and they are both much better than the kit lens in my opinion

04-08-2009, 03:12 PM	#18
shutterbob Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 69	Go With the DA 16-45 I side with all of those who favor the DA 16-45. Overall this lens is a terrific performer and photos are consistently sharper than the 18-55. After getting the 16-45 3 years ago, I have NEVER put the 18-55 back on the camera. With the kit lens, I was always "almost satisfied" with my photos; almost just doesn't cut it anymore. The 16-45 is remarkably close to a prime in contrast, sharpness, and clarity. It is without a doubt worth the difference.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is the extra $ on the FA77mm worth it over the DA70mm?	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	71	05-13-2010 08:40 AM
is the k-7 worth and extra $700	pfcapture	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	12-30-2009 09:04 PM
would u pay an extra $7,250 for this? d3x vs k20d	vitalsax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	33	12-22-2008 09:09 PM
is it worth to pay US$ 200 for 50mm f 1.2	fearview	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	06-08-2008 06:45 PM
K10 worth the extra $300?	Jobs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	09-25-2006 07:38 PM

04-07-2009, 02:54 AM	#16
jadem Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Bangkok, Thaland Posts: 80 Original Poster	Originally posted by shiestmiester I have a DAII 18-55 still under warranty i'm willing to let go of for $85. I have been happy with this lens but bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. If you need the speed I highly recommend this lens. If you need a nice cheap walkaround, the kit is a good option. I have no experience with 16-45 so no comment. Depends on your application. ~T Are you still willing to sell your kit lens shiestmiester?

04-08-2009, 01:08 PM	#17
Skewed Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: San Mateo, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 179	Maybe I got a bad copy of the 18-55 II, but after a week of using it with the K20D (I bought the kit) I ordered the 16-45, which I'm very happy with. The 18-55 II is fine for casual shooting, but can't capture full detail and color in a busy landscape at 55mm, especially at the borders, on the K20D's 14mp sensor. As someone else said, you can notice a difference as soon as you look through the viewfinder, which is much brighter with 16-45. The colors, contrast and sharpness are all noticeably better with the 16-45; the improvement is worth the money to me.

04-10-2009, 01:10 AM	#19
jadem Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Bangkok, Thaland Posts: 80 Original Poster	Thanks guys for all your inputs. I appreciate all your suggestions. I decided to go for the 16-45. in fact I just paid a 16-46-5 in one of our forum members. Just waiting for it to be shipped.

04-10-2009, 01:51 AM	#20
qksilver Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northern Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 131	Ive had all 3 lenses in this range, the 18-55 16-45 and the 16-50. the 16-45 is by far the best bang for the buck. the 16-50 is better but much more expensive and they are both much better than the kit lens in my opinion