DA 16-45 or 18-55 WR

fulcrumx29 · 08-17-2009, 04:34 PM

Hi All,

Anyone has compared these two lenses? Is 16-45 IQ better than the new sealed WR? I don't care about WR or price much but just the quality. Who can tell me which is better?

BTW, 16-45 has front focus problem wide open on my K-7 even at -10 AF adj (at f5.6 it is right on). Does 18-55 WR also suffer from that?

Thanks,
Tony

jct us101 · 08-17-2009, 04:36 PM

The WR lens is exactly the same quality as the 18-55 II lens. The 16-45 has a constant f/4 aperture, and is slightly sharper, but it also has a reverse barrell, which makes it impossible to use the onboard flash at wide angle. You can check reviews of both lenses on the forum and at photozone.de. slrgear.com has good ones too.

jct us101 · 08-17-2009, 04:37 PM

Only certain lenses have front focusing problems, so not all 16-45 lenses will have that. Also, losing 2mm can be a lot depending on what you're taking photos of. The 18-55 does suffer from some incredibly bad vignetting though.

lesmore49 · 08-17-2009, 05:54 PM

I have a 16-45 and an 18-55 kit, not WR.

They're both good, but I find my 16-45 takes sharper, clearer pictures than the 18-55.

The 18-55 came with my KM (k2000) and I usually leave it on the KM.

I usually use the 16-45 in my K10D.

Last week I took the same picture (International Lonestar Highway Tractor- ) at the same spot, same type of weather conditions, same times and while both lenses are excellent, I give the nod to the 16-45.

No surprise, the 16-45 is considerably more expensive.

**Ash** · 08-17-2009, 07:39 PM

G'day Tony.
The 16-45 is definitely worth every dollar - it's a very sharp lens, probably on par with the DA* 16-50.
Can't explain your FF problem, though. Probably best in that situation to leave the AF adjustment how it should be for the rest of the apertures and use the quick shift focusing to adjust it after it locks to get it properly in focus when used wide open.

fccwpe · 08-17-2009, 07:52 PM

My wife bought the 16-45 for me for father's day and there is no comparison. From the first indoor photo "around the house" stuff to close focus, almost macro shots the clarity, color representation and sharpness are head and shoulders above the kit lens that I have. Yes there is the problem of vignetting closer that ~28mm with the built in flash, but that 16-45 is my go to lens for almost everything. WELL worth every penny.

BBear · 08-18-2009, 07:24 AM

I have both 16-45 & the new 18-55WR and if you are only concerned with GLASS then the DA 16-45 is the best option.

It is not that much different, but it is a bit better, and faster!

asahi · 08-18-2009, 08:27 AM

Like BBear, I have both...and the 16-45 would always be my first choice. But I got the WR for those times weather makes the choice for me. As the 16-45 goes up in price everywhere i look, i am even more concerned with preserving it--The WR is light, handy, versatile and weather resistant, but it is strictly a role-player while the 16-45, 50 1.4 and 55-300 do the heavy lifting.

08-17-2009, 04:34 PM	#1
fulcrumx29 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Hawaii Photos: Gallery Posts: 117	DA 16-45 or 18-55 WR Hi All, Anyone has compared these two lenses? Is 16-45 IQ better than the new sealed WR? I don't care about WR or price much but just the quality. Who can tell me which is better? BTW, 16-45 has front focus problem wide open on my K-7 even at -10 AF adj (at f5.6 it is right on). Does 18-55 WR also suffer from that? Thanks, Tony

08-17-2009, 04:36 PM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	The WR lens is exactly the same quality as the 18-55 II lens. The 16-45 has a constant f/4 aperture, and is slightly sharper, but it also has a reverse barrell, which makes it impossible to use the onboard flash at wide angle. You can check reviews of both lenses on the forum and at photozone.de. slrgear.com has good ones too.

08-17-2009, 04:37 PM	#3
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Only certain lenses have front focusing problems, so not all 16-45 lenses will have that. Also, losing 2mm can be a lot depending on what you're taking photos of. The 18-55 does suffer from some incredibly bad vignetting though.

08-17-2009, 05:54 PM	#4
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	I have a 16-45 and an 18-55 kit, not WR. They're both good, but I find my 16-45 takes sharper, clearer pictures than the 18-55. The 18-55 came with my KM (k2000) and I usually leave it on the KM. I usually use the 16-45 in my K10D. Last week I took the same picture (International Lonestar Highway Tractor- ) at the same spot, same type of weather conditions, same times and while both lenses are excellent, I give the nod to the 16-45. No surprise, the 16-45 is considerably more expensive.

08-17-2009, 07:39 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	G'day Tony. The 16-45 is definitely worth every dollar - it's a very sharp lens, probably on par with the DA* 16-50. Can't explain your FF problem, though. Probably best in that situation to leave the AF adjustment how it should be for the rest of the apertures and use the quick shift focusing to adjust it after it locks to get it properly in focus when used wide open.

08-17-2009, 07:52 PM	#6
fccwpe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perris, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 380	My wife bought the 16-45 for me for father's day and there is no comparison. From the first indoor photo "around the house" stuff to close focus, almost macro shots the clarity, color representation and sharpness are head and shoulders above the kit lens that I have. Yes there is the problem of vignetting closer that ~28mm with the built in flash, but that 16-45 is my go to lens for almost everything. WELL worth every penny.

08-18-2009, 07:24 AM	#7
BBear Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: CT / NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 822	I have both 16-45 & the new 18-55WR and if you are only concerned with GLASS then the DA 16-45 is the best option. It is not that much different, but it is a bit better, and faster!

08-18-2009, 08:27 AM	#8
asahi Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Holliston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 69	Like BBear, I have both...and the 16-45 would always be my first choice. But I got the WR for those times weather makes the choice for me. As the 16-45 goes up in price everywhere i look, i am even more concerned with preserving it--The WR is light, handy, versatile and weather resistant, but it is strictly a role-player while the 16-45, 50 1.4 and 55-300 do the heavy lifting.