[northcoastgreg]

I have both the AL and the AL II and the only difference I can detect is that the AL II lacks the vignetting problems that plagued the earlier model.

[Asudef]

I know I read this somewhere else, probably on here but is the 18-55 in digital crop factor terms or not? Meaning, if I use this on my film Pentax, am I getting 18-55 or 12-37?

[Marc Sabatella]

18 is 18, 55 is 55. All 18mm lenses produce exactly the same field of view on a given camera, and all 55mmm lenses produce exactly the same field of view on a given camera, too. Crop factor isn't for comparing lenses - it is for comparing *cameras*. An 18mm lens on film camera will produce a different FOV than an 18mm on a digital camera.

However, more to the point - the DA18-55, like most DA lenses, will vignette badly on a film camera. The FOV will be the same as any other 18-55 on your film camera, but the corners will be dark or even completely black. DA lenses are meant for digital only.

[Asudef]

Thanks for the explanation, that confirms what I remember reading.

[Acheron]

18 is 18, 55 is 55. All 18mm lenses produce exactly the same field of view on a given camera, and all 55mmm lenses produce exactly the same field of view on a given camera, too. Crop factor isn't for comparing lenses - it is for comparing *cameras*. An 18mm lens on film camera will produce a different FOV than an 18mm on a digital camera.

However, more to the point - the DA18-55, like most DA lenses, will vignette badly on a film camera. The FOV will be the same as any other 18-55 on your film camera, but the corners will be dark or even completely black. DA lenses are meant for digital only.

My friend is using 18-55 kit lens on full frame film body and he says that it covers full frame at 22mm + focal lenghta

[Marc Sabatella]

I'd bet it also depends on what aperture.

[GeneV]

My friend is using 18-55 kit lens on full frame film body and he says that it covers full frame at 22mm + focal lenghta

I'd say your friend is pretty optimistic. Attached are my tests at 55mm. The first is wide open, and the second is stopped down to F8, which was about as good as it got, even when stopped down more. It is usable at F8 or above, with some Photoshop help, but not great. You can't tell it from this white background which I used to show vignetting, but the image quality toward those corners is none too good.

I have not shown it here, but the performance is actually better both in corner vignetting and sharpness at 35mm. That is consistent with the best FL for that lens on APS-c.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by GeneV; 04-07-2010 at 12:29 PM.

[wrkingclasshero]

What is the macro/close focus ratio on these lenses at 55mm?

[phzy2003]

i ve only used the dal 18-55, it's got a plastic lens mount unlike those da lens with a metal lens mount. and i think the da ii has better edge resolution than da i

[Marc Sabatella]

What is the macro/close focus ratio on these lenses at 55mm?

1:3

[fernley]

FWIW, I bought a II version and noticed immediately an improvement in IQ over the original. I received a DAL with my K-x and, although it's the same optical formula I am less impressed with the IQ. I ordered a WR and returned it as the IQ was lacking with it also.

So, it may all be related to sample variations, but the II version was the only one that I felt had an acceptable IQ for my tastes.

[KjetilH]

A common issue with the AL/original version, was softness at 55mm and min. focus distance. It is most pronounced at high-contrast edges.

Was this resolved with the second version? Anyone able to compare?

[Marc Sabatella]

I'd say it's slightly better, but if you're looking for really sharp images at 55mm and f/5.6 at close focus distances, I'd be looking at different lenses.

And ito the previous poster - the lenses you were comparing *are* the same optical design, so any difference you saw was definitely sample variation. That and perhaps not doing strictly controlled tests - normal variation shot to shot variation due to the phtographer and the settings and technique often accounts for a lot of what people initially mistaken for differences in gear. if you have controleld tests comparing any of these lenses with the same subject, same distnce, same focal length, same aperture, same camera, etc - feel free to psot them, as I'd be interested in seeing just what kind of sample variation really does exist. but I'm guessing these other factors will turn out to have played a larger role than you might be giving credit for.

[JoepLX3]

I have the feeling I have to go for the II, but is much more rare on the market.
- Maybe more will come after the introduction of the 18-135, but depending on IQ I might also want that one...

[zackspeed]

not to forget,the focusring of the 18-55 wr is made of metal.
same in the 50-200 wr.