Lens quandary

kcmadr · 06-15-2009, 06:36 PM

In my opinion the DA 16-45mm f4.0 is a much better lens than the 18-55mm I kit lens. I don't know about the II version of kit lens. I also find the additional 2mm of width quite useful.

I will post a couple of shots I took recently using the 16-45mm. I just need to do a quick conversion from RAW.

BTW There is a forum member selling his in the Pentax Marketplace at a pretty good price. He's in the US and so are you. It's NIB.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/63137-sale-trad...a-16-45mm.html

ballgofar · 06-15-2009, 07:43 PM

These reviews may be a little techinical, but they provide some sample photos that you'll be able to compare and comprehensive analysis and conclusions. I usually just skip to the "Sample Images & Verdict" page.

Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report

Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL - Review / Test Report

kcmadr · 06-15-2009, 10:13 PM

This was shot at 16mm, f5.6, ISO 100, EV +1.5, 1/750s.
In RAW, I removed some of the haze, increased the contrast, did lens correction for fringing and a bit of CA, and touched the sharpening lightly, all uprezzed to 25.1MP. In CS4 I touched the sharpening a bit and increased the contrast a touch again. Then shrank the image to this size, converted to 8 bits and sRGB. Then realized the image was too big (size and bytes), so reduced it further

, and further

, until it was just the right size to upload. It really looks good bigger.

**Ash** · 06-16-2009, 06:17 AM

+1 for the 16-45 being clearly more sharp and contrasty than the kit lens.
16-50's not been shown to be appreciably sharper than the 16-45, though the difference is in the X-factor, the 'pop' that images produced by the 16-50 have.

If you're tossing up between the 16-50 and 16-45, and aren't balking at the prices of these, then I'd say you could take the plunge for the 16-50. I've had both lenses, and while I loved the results I got from my 16-45, I appreciate my 16-50 just a little more.

acrbill · 06-16-2009, 04:15 PM

The 16-50 is out of my price range. I just did not want to pay for the 16-45 if it was only negligibly better than the kit lens.

I am starting to lean towards the 16-45 and will make a decision soon.

Thanks for the info guys.

Rico · 06-16-2009, 08:18 PM

There are also the new Weather Resistant Kit lenses coming out soon.

For travel the DA Limiteds would work well too.

acrbill · 06-16-2009, 08:42 PM

Well the quandary is no more. I saw a 16-45mm for $297 on ebay and I decided it was time to stop overthinking it. With shipping it was $312 and with the 8% back from bing.com it will end up costing $288.

Now I am good from 16mm up to 200mm. I think that should hold me over for awhile. My next purchase is going to be a nice pelican case so I can take all my gear with me on the road.

Thanks for all the tips.

kcmadr · 06-16-2009, 09:42 PM

You will be very pleased with your purchase. I went from kit lens to 16-45mm with the intention of upgrading to the DA* 16-50mm. Well, the image quality of the 16-45mm stopped my upgrading dead in its tracks.

robjmitchell · 06-17-2009, 05:48 AM

oops i missed the second page

By the way if you find the speed of the 16-45 a bit limiting indoors a flash might be a good purchase.

Cheers

06-15-2009, 10:13 PM	#18
kcmadr Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 614	This was shot at 16mm, f5.6, ISO 100, EV +1.5, 1/750s. In RAW, I removed some of the haze, increased the contrast, did lens correction for fringing and a bit of CA, and touched the sharpening lightly, all uprezzed to 25.1MP. In CS4 I touched the sharpening a bit and increased the contrast a touch again. Then shrank the image to this size, converted to 8 bits and sRGB. Then realized the image was too big (size and bytes), so reduced it further , and further , until it was just the right size to upload. It really looks good bigger. Last edited by kcmadr; 06-24-2009 at 08:35 PM.

06-17-2009, 05:48 AM	#24
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	oops i missed the second page By the way if you find the speed of the 16-45 a bit limiting indoors a flash might be a good purchase. Cheers Last edited by robjmitchell; 06-17-2009 at 05:54 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Newbie with a bit of a quandary	jpeg	Welcomes and Introductions	3	03-02-2010 09:02 AM

06-15-2009, 06:36 PM	#16
kcmadr Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 614	In my opinion the DA 16-45mm f4.0 is a much better lens than the 18-55mm I kit lens. I don't know about the II version of kit lens. I also find the additional 2mm of width quite useful. I will post a couple of shots I took recently using the 16-45mm. I just need to do a quick conversion from RAW. BTW There is a forum member selling his in the Pentax Marketplace at a pretty good price. He's in the US and so are you. It's NIB. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/63137-sale-trad...a-16-45mm.html

06-15-2009, 07:43 PM	#17
ballgofar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 87	These reviews may be a little techinical, but they provide some sample photos that you'll be able to compare and comprehensive analysis and conclusions. I usually just skip to the "Sample Images & Verdict" page. Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL - Review / Test Report

06-16-2009, 06:17 AM	#19
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	+1 for the 16-45 being clearly more sharp and contrasty than the kit lens. 16-50's not been shown to be appreciably sharper than the 16-45, though the difference is in the X-factor, the 'pop' that images produced by the 16-50 have. If you're tossing up between the 16-50 and 16-45, and aren't balking at the prices of these, then I'd say you could take the plunge for the 16-50. I've had both lenses, and while I loved the results I got from my 16-45, I appreciate my 16-50 just a little more.

06-16-2009, 04:15 PM	#20
acrbill Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 135 Original Poster	The 16-50 is out of my price range. I just did not want to pay for the 16-45 if it was only negligibly better than the kit lens. I am starting to lean towards the 16-45 and will make a decision soon. Thanks for the info guys.

06-16-2009, 08:18 PM	#21
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	There are also the new Weather Resistant Kit lenses coming out soon. For travel the DA Limiteds would work well too.

06-16-2009, 08:42 PM	#22
acrbill Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 135 Original Poster	Well the quandary is no more. I saw a 16-45mm for $297 on ebay and I decided it was time to stop overthinking it. With shipping it was $312 and with the 8% back from bing.com it will end up costing $288. Now I am good from 16mm up to 200mm. I think that should hold me over for awhile. My next purchase is going to be a nice pelican case so I can take all my gear with me on the road. Thanks for all the tips.

06-16-2009, 09:42 PM	#23
kcmadr Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 614	You will be very pleased with your purchase. I went from kit lens to 16-45mm with the intention of upgrading to the DA* 16-50mm. Well, the image quality of the 16-45mm stopped my upgrading dead in its tracks.