Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-20-2010, 08:09 AM   #31
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Before it was released I was quite excited, and really hoped for the DA15 to be something more special. But it seems a lot of compromises were made to make it so small, which is indeed a great selling feature. The only real IQ advantage it has over the zoom is significantly lower CA. But, as those charts show, the zoom performs admirably in other regards, and is usable directly from f/4. The DA15 is not cheap and I do not want to have to be stopping it down to f/8 just to get an crisp shot!
(Perspective: all these lenses will do a fine job in the vast majority of real-world cases.)
The DA15 is plenty crisp wide open but as with all other lenses, the DOF is quite thin. I can't speak on the Sigma zoom, I'm sure it's a nice lens but the two really are completely different. You do Not however have to stop down to f8 "Just to get a crisp shot".. That's just a ridiculous statement.



04-20-2010, 08:40 AM   #32
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,684
At the risk of piling on, I had an 18-55 and upgraded to the 16-45. The difference in colour and contrast was dramatic. I conducted resolution tests using a K20D at f5.6 and the 16-45 clearly resolves more detail. I've had an 18-55 DAL for a few months and I haven't even taken it out of the box.

Looking at the resolution tests at Photozone, the 16-45 equals the 16-50 and 17-70, stands up to the DA 15mm and beats the DA 21mm and Sigma 17-70. Something I've noticed from reading the forums, some copies have the poor CA performance reported in the Photozone review and some, including my copy, don't.

The range is great if you like wide and it just reaches the portrait range. I'd probably go for the 16-50 for the extra stop if I was starting out again, but if money is an issue the 16-45 is great value.

Some samples:



04-20-2010, 08:53 AM   #33
Senior Member
DJey's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 286
I did the same route before.. and quite happy with the DA 16-45mm.. that is if you're into wide.. But will not do it again. The only drawback I see in the kit lens is its distortion and sharpness in the corners specially if you used it for landscapes...
Good thing K7 has distortion correction already..
Base on your needs, I don't think you need to get one. Save up for a much better lens..
A fast lens maybe could improve your skills..
04-20-2010, 09:01 AM   #34
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
You do Not however have to stop down to f8 "Just to get a crisp shot".. That's just a ridiculous statement.
Yeah, sorry, you're right. I actually meant something slightly different, but my brain was obviously not working at that moment. I will leave my mistake in place so people quoting it don't look odd.

QuoteOriginally posted by timo Quote
And what difference there is is often completely masked by even modest sharpening or whatever in PP.
I would be careful with assertions like that. For me a shot has to already be good and crisp before one can sharpen it up in a naturalistic way, without lots of artificial halos and the like. I do believe that good PP is essential and can help every single shot, but it is not a cure-all.

04-20-2010, 09:27 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
Originally posted by timo
QuoteQuote:
And what difference there is is often completely masked by even modest sharpening or whatever in PP.
QuoteQuote:
I would be careful with assertions like that. For me a shot has to already be good and crisp before one can sharpen it up in a naturalistic way, without lots of artificial halos and the like. I do believe that good PP is essential and can help every single shot, but it is not a cure-all.
Well yes of course I was being facetious. And I said say 'often'. But I do believe that (a) many of the subtle differences between lens performances are lost in the real world, which is not spending its time inspecting images on large screens at 100%; and (b) the other variables of which PP is only one are often (perhaps usually) more important than the amount you spend on a lens. But that doesn't stop me spending silly amounts on lenses ...
Tim
04-20-2010, 09:29 AM   #36
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Yeah, sorry, you're right. I actually meant something slightly different, but my brain was obviously not working at that moment. I will leave my mistake in place so people quoting it don't look odd.
No Sweat.. If you were talking about resolution tests of charts and whatnot, I won't argue the point. I said in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that people can go bat blind crazy looking at lens reviews and focus/resolution charts. At the end of the day (or beginning), what matters is what happens when you hang the lens on a camera and go out and shoot with it. Is the DA15 Ltd worth the current price for a single FL lens? The decision is personal, I bought mine used at a significant savings, but if you're looking for light weight wide angle with Very minimal distortion (if any), it's a stellar performer. If you would rather have the option of going to 10mm with the sigma or pentax zooms, cool. I can respect that too.
04-20-2010, 09:37 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frisco Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 382
I noticed a big difference when I upgraded to the 16-45mm. I never used the 18-55mm indoors very much because it was soft unless it was stopped down. My 16-45mm is sharp wide open.
04-20-2010, 09:49 AM   #38
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
I think that the difference in sharpness between the 18-55 and 16-45 is small but noticable, and if that was the only difference I doubt that it would be worth the upgrade. But the difference in contrast and color is very noticable. The better color rendition is what jumped out at me after purchasing mine.

YMMV

04-20-2010, 04:15 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
One does not have to stop down to get a crisp shot with the DA15. I believe what I meant was something more like "to get the crispest shot". I have seen great shots from this lens at f/4 but even better when stopped down. It does, of course, depend on the subject. The centre is certainly sharp from wide open.]
True, but the center is also the only part of the frame normally in focus when shooting an ultrawide lens wide open. As Photozone says, center resolution is already "stunningly high" (their phrase, with which I am in full agreement) at f/4. I think pentax made exactly the right tradeoffs designing this lens - giving up a little sharpness in the corners wide open (which will almost never be in focus anyhow) in order to get a lens that meets or beats all others in virtually every other metric possible.
04-20-2010, 04:43 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by VaughnA Quote
I think that the difference in sharpness between the 18-55 and 16-45 is small but noticable, and if that was the only difference I doubt that it would be worth the upgrade. But the difference in contrast and color is very noticable. The better color rendition is what jumped out at me after purchasing mine.

YMMV
true, those are the things that I found missing with the kitlens.

at small prints, sharpness doesn't look that far apart, but becomes obvious at large prints. color and contrast are already significantly noticeable at small prints, much more so in larger ones. and yes, the 16-45 shows and retains more details of the subject that are of distance.
04-20-2010, 04:54 PM   #41
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
True, but the center is also the only part of the frame normally in focus when shooting an ultrawide lens wide open.
Of course this depends on the shots you do. Me, I actually shoot walls and floors and other planar surfaces where I also want the corners as sharp as possible.
04-20-2010, 05:00 PM   #42
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
That would be a problem, then - both any softness that might exist, but also the field curvature, which exacerbates the issue. Stopping down and shooting on tripod if necessary would be the real solution, but if you're hoping to shoot walls handheld in low light and get good corner sharpness, that will indeed be a task for a different lens. Somehow, though, I just don't see this as being huge on most people's priority list, so i'd still say pentax made a smart tradeoff, even if that means it isn't the best chocie for you.
04-21-2010, 10:50 AM   #43
A-z
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, England
Posts: 93
Original Poster
Thanks for all the replies and suggestions guys! I pulled the trigger on the DA 16-45 as I found a used one for 160 and I guess I could get that back if I dont see much difference and decide to sell... Really want to try that extra wide angle, but cannot justify spending 500+ on the other wide pentax's for what is just a hobby - got too many other expensive hobbies like hi-fi, music recording, astronomy, computing... God I'm such a geek!
04-21-2010, 12:49 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by A-z Quote
Thanks for all the replies and suggestions guys! I pulled the trigger on the DA 16-45 as I found a used one for 160 and I guess I could get that back if I dont see much difference and decide to sell... Really want to try that extra wide angle, but cannot justify spending 500+ on the other wide pentax's for what is just a hobby - got too many other expensive hobbies like hi-fi, music recording, astronomy, computing... God I'm such a geek!
hobbies? tell me about it. this doesn't include work itself. wish there were 2-3 of me doing separate things.
04-21-2010, 01:48 PM   #45
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by VaughnA Quote
I think that the difference in sharpness between the 18-55 and 16-45 is small but noticable, and if that was the only difference I doubt that it would be worth the upgrade. But the difference in contrast and color is very noticable. The better color rendition is what jumped out at me after purchasing mine.

YMMV

Guess I'm late to this party

Perhaps I don't have the best copy of the 16-45, but having used it for a number of years and compared it to a variety of primes and manual focus zooms I find the following:
- the color and contrast are very concentrated - when compared to, say, the 43 limited. But true contrast and color are wider with the 43. In other words, the 16-45 tends to create an impression, a good one, but an impression nontheless.
- the resolution is not in the league of a decent prime, again verifiable by direct comparison, not even at the pixel peeping level.
- compared to an excellent vintage zoom (Tamron SP 35-80 CF) the 16-45 has better color, flares less, but perhaps loses a bit in resolution. Then again this might be just my copy.
- the 16-45 has a habit of under exposure with the K100D. This I find annoying.

But overall, the lens takes good pictures and works well. I haven't compared it with my daughter's white K-x kit lens, but perhaps will.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
55mm, da-l, k-mount, kit, pentax lens, range, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 a worthy upgrade from the DA 16-45mm f4? Ben Hunt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 04-20-2010 06:26 AM
kx kit lens upgrade dehanson1 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 18 03-02-2010 11:53 PM
Upgrade from 16-45mm to 12-24mm or 50-135mm? AirSupply Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 01-22-2010 08:06 PM
Upgrade from kit lens? nixcamic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-24-2008 11:44 PM
upgrade from kit lens kokoperry Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 02-11-2008 08:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top