[Mister Guy]

The new WR lenses are presumed to be roughly on the same quality level as the old kit lenses, correct? Is it safe to mentally compare the old kit lenses with the DA* 16-50 until more reviews of the WR lenses come out? My old kit lens was on the camera body I had stolen a while back, and I'm getting by with my Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8. I'm missing having the option of the wide low end. Now that I have a K20D and a K-7, I'd like my future purchases to be weather sealed whenever possible, so I've ruled out the Tamron. The point of consideration I'm at is whether getting the WR outside of the kit at $200 is worth it over saving up another $400 and getting the DA* plus rebate from the K-7 box.

[SteveM]

Not quite the same thing....but I had the DA16-45 and sold it to help buy a DA* 16-50. I like the WR that is included with the DA*....especially since it usually rains all the time where I live, but I'm not sure that the DA*16-50 is that much of a better lens than my DA16-45 was. Perhaps the same holds true for the WR?

Any chance you can try both the WR and DA* out at a local camera store?

[BBear]

I just came out of the same exactly dilema: DA* 16-50 or new DA 18-55WR.

But before I go there, let me say that I have (had) experience the following:

- original 18-55 kit lens (had and sold)
- DA* 16-50 (rented for over a week)
- DA 16-45 (still have it and i may sell it)
- DA 18-55WR (just bought it last week)

With the above in mind, I do wish I had money for the DA* 16-50: it is a great lens, but it is costy and heavy (sometimes the size/weight is more negative than the price for me). If it werent for the WR requirements that I am facing, I'd be TOTALLY happy with the DA 16-45, which is also a great lens. But I do need a WR, so because of size/weight and lower cost, I got the new DA 18-55WR. It seems a bit better than my original K10D kit, so it must be optical formula from the new K20D kit version.

After my trip to the desert end of this month, i'll decide what will happen regarding both DA16-45 and DA18-55WR, since i only need one zoom at this range. I will have too more opnion about the optical quality of the new WR kit lens.

[Peter Zack]

I think it depends on your needs and requirments. Optically the kit lens is very good. Yes the DA16-45 and DA*16-50 are better in both sharpness and speed (DA*) but the kit lens is no slouch. If low light isn't a big issue or fast action stuff, then the kit lens is fine. If your needs are more demanding, then get the DA*. It's as good as you'll find in a wide, WR zoom in this range (the 16-45mm IMHO is optically similar).

Outside of the kit does really drive up the price and you might find someone who's selling the DA18-55 II WR here on our marketplace for a more reasonable price.

[EricT]

I have the 16-50, but I'm considering getting the 18-55 WR as well. It's nice to have a smaller lens that allows use of the in-built flash sometimes. That being said, the 16-50 is a pretty obvious step-up with respect to IQ. And you quickly get used to shooting at f/2.8!

[Rondec]

I have to say that is hard to beat the 16-50/ 50-135 combo for performance. At the same time, it is pretty pricey and they aren't small lenses. I am pretty paranoid about weather ever since I got caught in a freak rain storm and it ruined my K100 -- electronics and weather don't mix very well and for that matter, most lenses won't tolerate heavy rain either. So, if you shoot where you might get caught by the weather, it would make sense to pay a premium for one of the weather resistant lenses, but on the other hand if you don't go outside but twice a year, it wouldn't make sense at all.

[Ash]

Build quality as well in the 16-50 is another league from the 16-45.
When you feel the two lenses in your hands, you can tell the difference - that's on top of the added features mentioned above already.