[paulh]

Nice shots, pepperberry! The DA50-200 doesn't get a lot of love here, but I find it to be quite a nice little zoom.
Downtown Grapevine TX, with the DA18-55 v1

[pepperberry farm]

Nice shots, pepperberry! The DA50-200 doesn't get a lot of love here, but I find it to be quite a nice little zoom.
Downtown Grapevine TX, with the DA18-55 v1

thank you - somedays I kick myself for not bundling my K-50 with the 18 -135mm lens, but not often....

[Kobie]

Midge Fly
K-30, DA 18-55 V1
ISO 100, 1/180, F/8, external flash fired - Photo is not cropped

[yorik]

Earlyish in the morning... The 18-55 WR is my only wide-angle lens. I may have to rectify this some day, but in good light I don't see the need (yet).

[pepperberry farm]

Indian paintbrush, shot with the DA L 18-55mm kit lens:

[paulh]

DA18-55 v1

[Dewman]

.... I'll kick it around again! I have both versions of the 18-55mm kit lens, the DA-L and the DA-L WR. In spite of what is indicated in the data on the review page, I swear, there is a difference in the IQ of the two lenses! On mine, the WR lens is far superior in just about every aspect. Sharpness, especially! According to the data, they are supposedly identical in construction, other than the WR feature. Have any of you noticed the difference, also?


I have a friend who also has the same two lenses and he too agrees that the WR lens is the superior of the two. Odd, that. And, I agree with what you said, Paul.... about the 50-200mm not getting much respect, but that's a shame, because it is a fine lens! A FINE lens, indeed!

---------- Post added 04-28-15 at 07:22 AM ----------

Earlyish in the morning... The 18-55 WR is my only wide-angle lens. I may have to rectify this some day, but in good light I don't see the need (yet).

I think this image shows just how sharp this lens really is! Personally, I don't think the regular DA-L (non-WR) could have produced this kind of sharpness. Nice job.

[Kobie]

.... I'll kick it around again! I have both versions of the 18-55mm kit lens, the DA-L and the DA-L WR. In spite of what is indicated in the data on the review page, I swear, there is a difference in the IQ of the two lenses! On mine, the WR lens is far superior in just about every aspect. Sharpness, especially! According to the data, they are supposedly identical in construction, other than the WR feature. Have any of you noticed the difference, also?


I have a friend who also has the same two lenses and he too agrees that the WR lens is the superior of the two. Odd, that. And, I agree with what you said, Paul.... about the 50-200mm not getting much respect, but that's a shame, because it is a fine lens! A FINE lens, indeed!

---------- Post added 04-28-15 at 07:22 AM ----------




I think this image shows just how sharp this lens really is! Personally, I don't think the regular DA-L (non-WR) could have produced this kind of sharpness. Nice job.

As I understand it, the breakdown is like this.

DA and DA L are both the same optical quality, no weather sealing. DA has quick shift manual focus, DA L does not. DA L also lacks focus numbering and has a plastic mount.

Now, DA L WR is the same optically as the DA II. All other differences between DA L WR and DA II are as above except that the DA II is not weather sealed.

DA L WR and DA WR both are the same optically, both are weather sealed. Again, the differences are exactly the same as first mentioned (except for weather sealing) as the DA and DA L.

The DA (L) WR came out AFTER the DA so improvements were made in contrast and sharpness. Then those changes were added to the DA and it was renamed the DA II.

So yes, there is a difference between the Non WR DA's and WR DA L versions. No optical difference between DA L WR, DA WR and DA II lenses.

Hope that clears up some of the confusion.

[paulh]

A couple more from downtown Dallas with the DA18-55 v1...
Dealey Plaza and Reunion Tower:


The Old Red Courthouse Museum:

[Fire Angel]

.... I'll kick it around again! I have both versions of the 18-55mm kit lens, the DA-L and the DA-L WR. In spite of what is indicated in the data on the review page, I swear, there is a difference in the IQ of the two lenses! On mine, the WR lens is far superior in just about every aspect. Sharpness, especially! According to the data, they are supposedly identical in construction, other than the WR feature. Have any of you noticed the difference, also?


I have a friend who also has the same two lenses and he too agrees that the WR lens is the superior of the two. Odd, that. And, I agree with what you said, Paul.... about the 50-200mm not getting much respect, but that's a shame, because it is a fine lens! A FINE lens, indeed!

---------- Post added 04-28-15 at 07:22 AM ----------




I think this image shows just how sharp this lens really is! Personally, I don't think the regular DA-L (non-WR) could have produced this kind of sharpness. Nice job.

I think you're seeing sample variation rather than differences in lens construction. Two DA-L 18-55mm lenses that are theoretically the same model can vary quite a bit. Partly this may be due to the lightweight construction which means that if one of them takes a knock it's more likely to lose alignment than a more solidly built lens, part of it may be due to quality control issues which sadly did (do?) affect some batches.

[paulh]

One from last November with the DA18-55 v1 (xposted)

[kh1234567890]

[Dewman]

Nice work. I especially like #2. This post goes to show just how sharp this kit lens can be. I absolutely LOVE my 18-55mm WR lens. Much sharper than it's non-WR counterpart.

[paulh]

A couple from the 18-55 v1:

[kh1234567890]