Originally posted by VaughnA 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.