Originally posted by audiobomber That thread shows that quite a few owners disagree with you about the relative merits of the 16-45 vs the 18-55. I have both. The 16-45 is sharper, and has much better colour & contrast. I consider the 16-45 faster because it is sharp at f4 and the kit lens is soft unless it's stopped down. Of course at the long end, where it counts, the 16-45 is a stop faster, f4 vs 5.6.
I know. That's why I pointed out that thread - so the OP could view multiple opinions.
There's also plenty of folks who agree with me that the 16-45 is a only small step-up from the 18-55 mk ii, unless you need the extra 2mm on the wide end. To quote my 1st post, "if you have a "
good" copy of the kit lens, $300 to too much for the extra 2mm and no real increase in speed, and only a slight bump in IQ."
Since when is "the long end, where it counts" applicable to the 16-45? Promoters of the 16-45
always emphasize the wider end. And as far as the 45mm point being a stop faster with the 16-45 than 18-55 mk ii, that is very true, but dial both lenses back just 2 mm and the advantage shrinks to a mere ~ 1/3 stop, f/4 to f/4.5.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the 16-45 is a bad lens at all. My issue is that @ $400 it does not represent a good value when compared with the kit lens. I just looked at Adorama, and they have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR for $459. That's the best value of all the lenses being bandied about in this thread!