Is the AL II version of the kit's 18-55 a noticeable step from the original?

Marc Sabatella · 09-15-2009, 07:19 PM

Well, I don't have a K20D - could be that it would magnify the difference more than my K200D does. And indeed, it was because of the K20D the new kit lens was produced, so there's every reason to expect that it would expose the differences better.

What I would say is that *at is best* (sweet spots of focal length and aperture), there's a noticeable difference between the vI and vII even on my K200D. It's actually significant enough that I'd be skeptical just how much better the 16-50 would really be at that same sweet spot. After all, even my DA40 is probably not as much better than the 18-55II *at f/8* at the 18-55II is compared to the original. But of course, the 16-50 will be a more noticeable improvement in the extremes of focal length and aperture (just as the DA40 is a bigger improvement over the 18-55II at f/4.5). And of course, simply having f/2.8 is an advantage in itself.

Sorry, I realize that doesn't really help make the decision.

**mtngal** · 09-15-2009, 08:43 PM

Well, maybe there is hope for me yet as far as the WR kit lens goes. The comparison shots were with demo models and I thought the WR kit wasn't bad, better than what I remembered from the V1 on the K20. When I asked about how the WR kit compared to the 12-24, Ken Curry said it would be similar. I think I'll stay on the fence for a while.

jamesm007 · 09-15-2009, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

While I agree with Marc (I've owned the VI, VII DA16-45mm and DA*16-50mm) I wouldn't suggest using any lens in the rain or snow with a WS body. Mainly because theWR/WS lenses have a gasket on the lens mount that will keep water out of the body. You might be comfortable tossing the lens when it fails but I don't expect anyone wants water getting in through the lens mount and possibly killing the camera.

The VII is a very nice lens and an upgrade from the VI version. I currently have the VII as a backup to my DA*16-50mm. I also agree if you are going to spend the money, get a DA16-45mm. It's a great lens if WR/WS is not a consideration. IQ is pretty much on par with the DA*16-50mm and it's much smaller and lighter.

I second the warning of using a non WR designed lens in any amount of dampness. I have used the regular kit Ver I at Niagara falls almost all day in the rain!, but protected with various things I could grab, plastic, napkins anything to keep water off the mount. When it got too bad I put the camera away. At an air show a few weekends ago the weather said "NO RAIN" well it rained hard all day and I left my WR lens at home

and only had my Sigma 17-70mm and Pentax DA55-300mm, I did let them get wet sometimes but did not zoom the lens and would dry them off before use. Yes as Mark say Prudent care must be taken. But I would add not all lens and bodies are the same. Temperature can make a difference, manufacturing tolerance... could make your lens and body let every drop of water right through the lens to mount area into your body or lens(not good). Also it would take a fair bit of water ingress for water to get to the elements with the lens vertical, if some water gets in and you hold the camera down it can get on the elements and its not a good thing.

No two combos of body and lens are the same, what works for one may not for another.

This I know for sure, with a non WR lens your taking a fair risk of losing your dSLR and lens, and the odds are many times that of a WR lens used on a sealed Pentax body.

I would say only use your non WR lens in poor weather with no protection if the pic is a must have and well worth losing your dSLR and lens

other wise why take the chance?

BTW I have insurance on my gear so I don't care too much of it gets damaged Oh and I know it may not cover water damage, so in the end I was very careful made bags for my lens and finally just sold my reg kit II and bought the WR kit.

conradj · 09-17-2009, 02:14 AM

i recently got the WR kit lens. After returning the first 2, ended up with an ok sample. First one wasn't very good optically, second one had a manual focus ring that felt like it had sand in it (probably the clutch mech. not releasing properly), plus at times ring wouldn't want to turn. It was also quite bad optically.

Third one works well and has tolerable image qualities at f7.1 to f11, between approx. 20mm to 50mm, that is, in that range foliage doesn't turn all to blobs.

i quite like the size and feel of the lens and the WR version has a better shape in my hand than the AL II.

Very glad i bought mine at a photo store that tolerated my fussiness and let me return the first 2 units. It's not much of a testament for the factory quality control.

The man at the service counter also tested my second return against an AL I lens from their Pentax display, and i noticed that that unit had a focusing geartrain that never released the autofocus, so when i turned the focus ring it spun the autofocus motor in the cam body.

Not being a Pentax expert the service counter guy thought that was normal until i pointed it out to him. He was otherwise extremely helpful.

Edit: i did test the WR against a friend's DA L version, and the WR has better contrast and rez. The DA L focus ring felt a mite better however.

Last edited by conradj; 09-17-2009 at 02:39 AM.

09-15-2009, 10:58 PM	#18
jamesm007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit MI, USA Posts: 508	Not worth the risk Originally posted by Peter Zack While I agree with Marc (I've owned the VI, VII DA16-45mm and DA16-50mm) I wouldn't suggest using any lens in the rain or snow with a WS body. Mainly because theWR/WS lenses have a gasket on the lens mount that will keep water out of the body. You might be comfortable tossing the lens when it fails but I don't expect anyone wants water getting in through the lens mount and possibly killing the camera. The VII is a very nice lens and an upgrade from the VI version. I currently have the VII as a backup to my DA16-50mm. I also agree if you are going to spend the money, get a DA16-45mm. It's a great lens if WR/WS is not a consideration. IQ is pretty much on par with the DA*16-50mm and it's much smaller and lighter. I second the warning of using a non WR designed lens in any amount of dampness. I have used the regular kit Ver I at Niagara falls almost all day in the rain!, but protected with various things I could grab, plastic, napkins anything to keep water off the mount. When it got too bad I put the camera away. At an air show a few weekends ago the weather said "NO RAIN" well it rained hard all day and I left my WR lens at home and only had my Sigma 17-70mm and Pentax DA55-300mm, I did let them get wet sometimes but did not zoom the lens and would dry them off before use. Yes as Mark say Prudent care must be taken. But I would add not all lens and bodies are the same. Temperature can make a difference, manufacturing tolerance... could make your lens and body let every drop of water right through the lens to mount area into your body or lens(not good). Also it would take a fair bit of water ingress for water to get to the elements with the lens vertical, if some water gets in and you hold the camera down it can get on the elements and its not a good thing. No two combos of body and lens are the same, what works for one may not for another. This I know for sure, with a non WR lens your taking a fair risk of losing your dSLR and lens, and the odds are many times that of a WR lens used on a sealed Pentax body. I would say only use your non WR lens in poor weather with no protection if the pic is a must have and well worth losing your dSLR and lens other wise why take the chance? BTW I have insurance on my gear so I don't care too much of it gets damaged Oh and I know it may not cover water damage, so in the end I was very careful made bags for my lens and finally just sold my reg kit II and bought the WR kit.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 APO original version	bodhi08	Sold Items	1	08-29-2010 04:11 AM
The DA-L 55-300mm or Kit version is a great lens	geezer52	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-07-2010 10:52 AM
step up lens after kit 28-55mm	fobia	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-18-2008 07:41 PM

09-15-2009, 07:19 PM	#16
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Well, I don't have a K20D - could be that it would magnify the difference more than my K200D does. And indeed, it was because of the K20D the new kit lens was produced, so there's every reason to expect that it would expose the differences better. What I would say is that at is best (sweet spots of focal length and aperture), there's a noticeable difference between the vI and vII even on my K200D. It's actually significant enough that I'd be skeptical just how much better the 16-50 would really be at that same sweet spot. After all, even my DA40 is probably not as much better than the 18-55II at f/8 at the 18-55II is compared to the original. But of course, the 16-50 will be a more noticeable improvement in the extremes of focal length and aperture (just as the DA40 is a bigger improvement over the 18-55II at f/4.5). And of course, simply having f/2.8 is an advantage in itself. Sorry, I realize that doesn't really help make the decision.

09-15-2009, 08:43 PM	#17
mtngal Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Wherever I’m Parked Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,003	Well, maybe there is hope for me yet as far as the WR kit lens goes. The comparison shots were with demo models and I thought the WR kit wasn't bad, better than what I remembered from the V1 on the K20. When I asked about how the WR kit compared to the 12-24, Ken Curry said it would be similar. I think I'll stay on the fence for a while.

09-17-2009, 02:14 AM	#19
conradj Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 188	i recently got the WR kit lens. After returning the first 2, ended up with an ok sample. First one wasn't very good optically, second one had a manual focus ring that felt like it had sand in it (probably the clutch mech. not releasing properly), plus at times ring wouldn't want to turn. It was also quite bad optically. Third one works well and has tolerable image qualities at f7.1 to f11, between approx. 20mm to 50mm, that is, in that range foliage doesn't turn all to blobs. i quite like the size and feel of the lens and the WR version has a better shape in my hand than the AL II. Very glad i bought mine at a photo store that tolerated my fussiness and let me return the first 2 units. It's not much of a testament for the factory quality control. The man at the service counter also tested my second return against an AL I lens from their Pentax display, and i noticed that that unit had a focusing geartrain that never released the autofocus, so when i turned the focus ring it spun the autofocus motor in the cam body. Not being a Pentax expert the service counter guy thought that was normal until i pointed it out to him. He was otherwise extremely helpful. Edit: i did test the WR against a friend's DA L version, and the WR has better contrast and rez. The DA L focus ring felt a mite better however. Last edited by conradj; 09-17-2009 at 02:39 AM.