DA*16-50 worth buying as replacement of DA18-55mm WR?

Leo Miyanaga · 10-01-2009, 11:00 PM

I got DA18-55mm WR as the kit lens of the K-7.
I have not much problem with the lens, but I was wondering if I should get "star" lenses for higher grade cameras like K-7.

I'm planning on shooting in Alaska this winter, and am trying to prepare gears right now.

I guess I'll get DA*60-250mm F4 for the tele-photo soon.

pschlute · 10-02-2009, 01:57 AM

First off I don't have experience of the WR 18-55. I still have the original 18-55 that came with my first DSLR, a DS, and I believe the newer versions are better at resolving detail. As a general zoom it is good value for money, and as long as you use it stopped down you can get excellent results.

I am generally a prime user, but I got the DA*16-50 for a trip to Yellowstone last month..... zooms are very convenient for travel. I am very happy with the quality this lens produces. It is a big step up from the "kit" lens and is sharp at 2.8. The extra 2mm of focal length at the wide end is very useful, and any slight barrel distortion can be corrected easily in pp, but to be honest most landscape shots I took did not need any correction.

If you are serious about your phtography then I would recommend the purchase.

The other lens I took was the DA* 60-250 which is a stellar lens, and I recommend that too, although if you are after wildlife shots you will want something longer.

**Rondec** · 10-02-2009, 06:23 AM

I would recommend the 16-50. Definitely a step up from the kit lens. If you stop down to f8, you probably won't see a huge difference, but obviously, you can open your aperture a lot wider on the Da* lens. To me, it has nicer bokeh and much better in low light situations.

Marc Sabatella · 10-02-2009, 09:03 AM

I'd say if you aren't running into limitations with the 18-55, then consider putting the money you would have spent on the 16-50 elsewhere where your need is greater. But do consider that even if you don't *currently* feel the need for anything wider than 18mm, that may change in Alaska. And if you're there in winter - which is to say, night :-) - f/2.8 might come in handy too.

**EsBee** · 10-02-2009, 11:38 AM

I think the 16-45mm f4 deserves a close look as an option as well, since it is less than half the cost of a 16-50 yet probably offers most of what the 16-50 does.

What the 16-50 offers on top of the 16-45 mainly are, built-in motor for quiet operation (but prone to break down eventually), 5mm of extra reach (about a small step), one full stop of light (not a huge factor if shooting primarily outdoors) and of course, weather sealing.

**Ash** · 10-02-2009, 01:21 PM

If you're dead set on something weather resistant, you won't be disappointed with a good 16-50 and 60-250 combo. Both are excellent performers and worth spending a little more on compared to the 18-55 and 50-200 WRs. Just depends what you're shooting and your IQ expectations.

Leo Miyanaga · 10-02-2009, 04:57 PM

Thanks to all,

I haven't gotten much chance to use the 18-55mm WR yet. I used to have the first version and used it with K100D for a year, but after I got Sigma 10-20 + 30mm prime, I ended up not using it so much.

Then now, I kind of realized that having weather proofed zoom is handy for the trekking opportunity.

My plan was to use the 18-55mm WR with Sigma 10-20mm, *60-250mm, and 30mm prime. but if *16-50mm would perform nearly as good as th prime 30mm, I thought that's kind of nice.

The other thought was that if the 18-55mm's "WR" is good for such a heavy duty like shooting in Alaska in the winter. I have experienced difficulty with my old Nikon DSLR + kit lens in the snow environment before so...

I don't have too much extra money, so I'd like to think of using the fund for something else if the 18-55mm WR does the work like Marc suggested.

Very difficult decision.

BBear · 10-03-2009, 07:37 AM

Leo,

I went thru the same dilema two months ago, when I was preparing to a trip to the Black Rock Desert, as I needed a sealed lens in the range.

I already owned the DA 16-45, and though i actually like the IQ a LOT (and that is coming from someone that had a chance to rent the DA* 16-50 before), but the lens has no WR.

Anyways, the dilemma was: sell DA 16-45 and buy DA* or buy the new 18-55WR.

At the end, the 18-55WR got the bid, not only for the lower price, but mostly because of its SIZE and weight.

Coming back from the trip, here are my feelings:

- I was shocked with the results i got from the new WR Kit lens. Really really incredible: colors were coming out great (though i had a Polarizer), the sharpness was there, and contrast was more than enough!

- The lens survived the desert just fine: it is all dust right now, but i have no problems.

I plan on keeping the DA 18-55WR and the new dilema for me is regarding the DA 16-45: sell it or keep it? I even considered selling both DA's and financing the DA*, cost would not the a problem, but the size and weight it is, and I do appreciate carrying less weight around.

Good luck,

BB

Andi Lo · 10-03-2009, 08:59 AM

Those are great photos BB...

No experience with WR but I'm still contemplating which WR lens to get for my K10D... when I see the 18-55 for a good price I'll probably grab it

Leo Miyanaga · 10-04-2009, 09:52 PM

BB

Thanks for the great images.

I guess I'll play with the DA18-55WR a bit more!

res3567 · 10-04-2009, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by BBear

Leo,

I
I already owned the DA 16-45, and though i actually like the IQ a LOT (and that is coming from someone that had a chance to rent the DA* 16-50 before), but the lens has no WR.

Anyways, the dilemma was: sell DA 16-45 and buy DA* or buy the new 18-55WR.

At the end, the 18-55WR got the bid, not only for the lower price, but mostly because of its SIZE and weight.

- I was shocked with the results i got from the new WR Kit lens. Really really incredible: colors were coming out great (though i had a Polarizer), the sharpness was there, and contrast was more than enough!

]

- The lens survived the desert just fine: it is all dust right now, but i have no problems.

I plan on keeping the DA 18-55WR and the new dilema for me is regarding the DA 16-45: sell it or keep it? I even considered selling both DA's and financing the DA*, cost would not the a problem, but the size and weight it is, and I do appreciate carrying less weight around.

Good luck,

BB

Either keep what you have or sell both and get the 16-50.

Yea the DA* is heavier but remember it is a f/2.8. If you can stand the extra weight, I would get that one as it is also WR.

cbaytan · 10-04-2009, 10:48 PM

I don't assume this is you !

Originally posted by BBear

BB

Niklars · 10-07-2009, 01:39 AM

BBear, those are some really great pictures. I think you just convinced me of waiting with another lens buy.

Rich_A · 10-07-2009, 03:21 PM

BBear, you should really post your review of the 18-55mm WR in the Lens Review Database. It doesn't get much love from folks around here because it's a lowly kit lens, but these shots are really great. Thanks for sharing your results.

Pentaxor · 10-08-2009, 01:18 PM

though the initial results of others (before it came out) and my initial test and findings of the 18-55 WR was very good before I got one, the results that I got were quite good but not really to my liking. I find the WR lens to be lacking some punch, maybe because it's a bit soft as compared to the DA* and 16-45 which are contrasty. and that not so nice distortion at 18mm. most often I needed to work out or change the angle inorder not to show any distortions or field curvature. I'm still debating right now whether to keep my WR lens or to replace it with the 16-45, most especially I could get one for the same price. but I'm still giving the WR lens a shot or prove it's worth until I get that results that I had been looking for it to achieve or what I am expecting it to produce. let's see if it would warm up to me by using it more. until then, I wouldn't post a premature review coz it won't be a good one. I'll have my reservations til then.

10-01-2009, 11:00 PM	#1
Leo Miyanaga New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 12	*DA16-50 worth buying as replacement of DA18-55mm WR?** I got DA18-55mm WR as the kit lens of the K-7. I have not much problem with the lens, but I was wondering if I should get "star" lenses for higher grade cameras like K-7. I'm planning on shooting in Alaska this winter, and am trying to prepare gears right now. I guess I'll get DA*60-250mm F4 for the tele-photo soon.

10-08-2009, 01:18 PM	#15
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	though the initial results of others (before it came out) and my initial test and findings of the 18-55 WR was very good before I got one, the results that I got were quite good but not really to my liking. I find the WR lens to be lacking some punch, maybe because it's a bit soft as compared to the DA* and 16-45 which are contrasty. and that not so nice distortion at 18mm. most often I needed to work out or change the angle inorder not to show any distortions or field curvature. I'm still debating right now whether to keep my WR lens or to replace it with the 16-45, most especially I could get one for the same price. but I'm still giving the WR lens a shot or prove it's worth until I get that results that I had been looking for it to achieve or what I am expecting it to produce. let's see if it would warm up to me by using it more. until then, I wouldn't post a premature review coz it won't be a good one. I'll have my reservations til then. Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-10-2009 at 01:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Have M 28/2.8 - worth buying M 28/3.5?	Jonathan Mac	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	04-02-2018 07:16 AM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 worth the upgrade over DA18-55mm WR?	secateurs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	11-02-2010 12:37 PM
For Sale - Sold: K20D - DBG Grip - DA18-55mm WR - 18-55mm DAL	VaughnA	Sold Items	7	03-13-2010 05:40 PM
Is the M 120/2.8 worth buying?	carlb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	04-21-2009 03:14 AM
k10 is it worth buying?	emptydam	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	11-11-2007 04:55 AM

10-02-2009, 01:57 AM	#2
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,198	First off I don't have experience of the WR 18-55. I still have the original 18-55 that came with my first DSLR, a DS, and I believe the newer versions are better at resolving detail. As a general zoom it is good value for money, and as long as you use it stopped down you can get excellent results. I am generally a prime user, but I got the DA16-50 for a trip to Yellowstone last month..... zooms are very convenient for travel. I am very happy with the quality this lens produces. It is a big step up from the "kit" lens and is sharp at 2.8. The extra 2mm of focal length at the wide end is very useful, and any slight barrel distortion can be corrected easily in pp, but to be honest most landscape shots I took did not need any correction. If you are serious about your phtography then I would recommend the purchase. The other lens I took was the DA 60-250 which is a stellar lens, and I recommend that too, although if you are after wildlife shots you will want something longer.

10-02-2009, 06:23 AM	#3
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I would recommend the 16-50. Definitely a step up from the kit lens. If you stop down to f8, you probably won't see a huge difference, but obviously, you can open your aperture a lot wider on the Da* lens. To me, it has nicer bokeh and much better in low light situations.

10-02-2009, 09:03 AM	#4
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I'd say if you aren't running into limitations with the 18-55, then consider putting the money you would have spent on the 16-50 elsewhere where your need is greater. But do consider that even if you don't currently feel the need for anything wider than 18mm, that may change in Alaska. And if you're there in winter - which is to say, night :-) - f/2.8 might come in handy too.

10-02-2009, 11:38 AM	#5
EsBee Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: National Capital Region Posts: 739	I think the 16-45mm f4 deserves a close look as an option as well, since it is less than half the cost of a 16-50 yet probably offers most of what the 16-50 does. What the 16-50 offers on top of the 16-45 mainly are, built-in motor for quiet operation (but prone to break down eventually), 5mm of extra reach (about a small step), one full stop of light (not a huge factor if shooting primarily outdoors) and of course, weather sealing.

10-02-2009, 01:21 PM	#6
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	If you're dead set on something weather resistant, you won't be disappointed with a good 16-50 and 60-250 combo. Both are excellent performers and worth spending a little more on compared to the 18-55 and 50-200 WRs. Just depends what you're shooting and your IQ expectations.

10-02-2009, 04:57 PM	#7
Leo Miyanaga New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 12 Original Poster	Thanks to all, I haven't gotten much chance to use the 18-55mm WR yet. I used to have the first version and used it with K100D for a year, but after I got Sigma 10-20 + 30mm prime, I ended up not using it so much. Then now, I kind of realized that having weather proofed zoom is handy for the trekking opportunity. My plan was to use the 18-55mm WR with Sigma 10-20mm, 60-250mm, and 30mm prime. but if 16-50mm would perform nearly as good as th prime 30mm, I thought that's kind of nice. The other thought was that if the 18-55mm's "WR" is good for such a heavy duty like shooting in Alaska in the winter. I have experienced difficulty with my old Nikon DSLR + kit lens in the snow environment before so... I don't have too much extra money, so I'd like to think of using the fund for something else if the 18-55mm WR does the work like Marc suggested. Very difficult decision.

10-03-2009, 07:37 AM	#8
BBear Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: CT / NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 822	Leo, I went thru the same dilema two months ago, when I was preparing to a trip to the Black Rock Desert, as I needed a sealed lens in the range. I already owned the DA 16-45, and though i actually like the IQ a LOT (and that is coming from someone that had a chance to rent the DA* 16-50 before), but the lens has no WR. Anyways, the dilemma was: sell DA 16-45 and buy DA* or buy the new 18-55WR. At the end, the 18-55WR got the bid, not only for the lower price, but mostly because of its SIZE and weight. Coming back from the trip, here are my feelings: - I was shocked with the results i got from the new WR Kit lens. Really really incredible: colors were coming out great (though i had a Polarizer), the sharpness was there, and contrast was more than enough! - The lens survived the desert just fine: it is all dust right now, but i have no problems. I plan on keeping the DA 18-55WR and the new dilema for me is regarding the DA 16-45: sell it or keep it? I even considered selling both DA's and financing the DA*, cost would not the a problem, but the size and weight it is, and I do appreciate carrying less weight around. Good luck, BB

10-03-2009, 08:59 AM	#9
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Those are great photos BB... No experience with WR but I'm still contemplating which WR lens to get for my K10D... when I see the 18-55 for a good price I'll probably grab it

10-04-2009, 09:52 PM	#10
Leo Miyanaga New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 12 Original Poster	BB Thanks for the great images. I guess I'll play with the DA18-55WR a bit more!

10-04-2009, 10:00 PM	#11
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by BBear Leo, I I already owned the DA 16-45, and though i actually like the IQ a LOT (and that is coming from someone that had a chance to rent the DA* 16-50 before), but the lens has no WR. Anyways, the dilemma was: sell DA 16-45 and buy DA* or buy the new 18-55WR. At the end, the 18-55WR got the bid, not only for the lower price, but mostly because of its SIZE and weight. - I was shocked with the results i got from the new WR Kit lens. Really really incredible: colors were coming out great (though i had a Polarizer), the sharpness was there, and contrast was more than enough! ] - The lens survived the desert just fine: it is all dust right now, but i have no problems. I plan on keeping the DA 18-55WR and the new dilema for me is regarding the DA 16-45: sell it or keep it? I even considered selling both DA's and financing the DA, cost would not the a problem, but the size and weight it is, and I do appreciate carrying less weight around. Good luck, BB Either keep what you have or sell both and get the 16-50. Yea the DA is heavier but remember it is a f/2.8. If you can stand the extra weight, I would get that one as it is also WR.

10-04-2009, 10:48 PM	#12
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	I don't assume this is you ! Originally posted by BBear BB

10-07-2009, 01:39 AM	#13
Niklars New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 6	BBear, those are some really great pictures. I think you just convinced me of waiting with another lens buy.

10-07-2009, 03:21 PM	#14
Rich_A Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Montana Photos: Gallery Posts: 213	BBear, you should really post your review of the 18-55mm WR in the Lens Review Database. It doesn't get much love from folks around here because it's a lowly kit lens, but these shots are really great. Thanks for sharing your results.