Upgrade from kit to 16-45mm?

JeffJS · 04-20-2010, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

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.

audiobomber · 04-20-2010, 08:40 AM

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:

DJey · 04-20-2010, 08:53 AM

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..

**rparmar** · 04-20-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by JeffJS

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.

Originally posted by timo

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.

timo · 04-20-2010, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by timo

Quote:

And what difference there is is often completely masked by even modest sharpening or whatever in PP.

Quote:

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

JeffJS · 04-20-2010, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

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.

rockmaster1964 · 04-20-2010, 09:37 AM

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.

VaughnA · 04-20-2010, 09:49 AM

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

Marc Sabatella · 04-20-2010, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

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.

Pentaxor · 04-20-2010, 04:43 PM

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

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.

**rparmar** · 04-20-2010, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

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.

Marc Sabatella · 04-20-2010, 05:00 PM

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.

A-z · 04-21-2010, 10:50 AM

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!

Pentaxor · 04-21-2010, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by A-z

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.

Nesster · 04-21-2010, 01:48 PM

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.

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

04-20-2010, 08:09 AM	#31
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by rparmar 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
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	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
DJey Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 284	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
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by JeffJS 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. Originally posted by timo 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
timo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: former Arsenal football stadium Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	Originally posted by timo Quote: And what difference there is is often completely masked by even modest sharpening or whatever in PP. Quote: 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
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by rparmar 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
rockmaster1964 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
VaughnA Banned 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
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by rparmar 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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	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 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
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella 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
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	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
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by A-z 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
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	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.