Replacement for 18-55mm II kit lens

catalina · 04-24-2010, 04:19 PM

I was starting to lose faith in my recently purchased K10d (sorry Forum members). I was shooting with an 18-55 II Pentax kit lens I picked up on another forum. I was disappointed in the results (soft images).
Luckily I got a great deal on a Pentax 55-300, and started shooting. WOW...what an improvement. I love my K10d again!

Can anyone recommend another lens I can use in place of the 18-55 that will give IQ results equal to or better than the 55-300? Either Pentax or 3rd party in a similar type focal length to the 18-55.

I was thinking of the 16-45 Pentax, but see mixed reviews.

Thanks, Neil

**kiwi_jono** · 04-24-2010, 05:19 PM

I'm interested too. While my 18-55 is Ok, somehow I'm just not clicking with it. The results I get with my 55 - 300 are on average a lot better (IQ wise) for some reason.

Recently picked up a cheap Sigma AF 28 - 70 UC (second hand but in excellent condition) for about US$18. Although not very wide and its not a perfect lense, I'm getting some great shots out of it (quality wise) - dispite some comments on some forums saying UC stands for "Utter Crap", I'm finding it better IQ wise than 18-55. It seams to be pretty sharp at any aperture from f3.5 right through to 16! Very useful range and no noticeable CA.

Looking at the reviews for the 16-45, it seems to me that there is quite a bit of CA which would probably bother me bit. Quite happy with the CA on 18-55 (and the Sigma) and the 55 - 300 can show some (although quite acceptable to me).

Would also be interested in peoples opinions.

causey · 04-24-2010, 08:21 PM

You might want to check out these recently started threads:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/98290-upgrade-kit-16-45mm.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/98895-da-16-45...i-testing.html

(No significant CA with the 16-45mm in my experience. There is some, but not 'quite a bit'.)

Marc Sabatella · 04-24-2010, 08:34 PM

You might also post some of the 18-55 images you are unhappy with. Not that there aren't better lenses, but without knowing anything about your background or experience, I would say that most complaints about soft images are not the lens' fault...

**Ash** · 04-24-2010, 09:02 PM

The 18-55, although not the sharpest lens in the shed, can perform beautifully at its sweet spot of f/8. I'd also be interested to see some of the images you're not happy with captured by this much maligned lens.

catalina · 04-25-2010, 06:26 AM

Thanks to all the responders for the insight, and links to the related articles...

I have attached a couple of images here.

Flickr: ChrisCraft75's Photostream

Both taken in bright sun.

The "anchor" was with the 18-55 f13 @ 1/250 at 55mm
The "dog" was with the 55-300 f8 @ 1/1500 at 78mm
I chose these 2 for the texture.

The log (18-55) just does not have the clarity. Even if I suspected front/back focus issues, I would expect somewhere in the image to be sharper.

In the one of the dog however, the hair is crisp, and there is great contrast. I realize the 18-55 shot was at a slightly slower shutter speed, but the

IS was on, and at 55mm
I would think 1/250 should not be an issue.

I realize these are only 2 images, but they are indicative of what I have been seeing. I dont have any shots with the 18-55 that impress me. I even

have a "cheap" Promaster (Sigma miniwide) 28mm f2.8 prime that does equal or better.

Flickr: ChrisCraft75's Photostream

audiobomber · 04-25-2010, 06:41 AM

I upgraded to a 16-45 from the original 18-55 and found a striking improvement in colour and contrast. I like having 16mm at the wide end and sharpness difference is noticeable. My 18-55 was not defective in any way, just kind of dull looking and too soft at max apertures. I also have a new 18-55 DA L. I've only used it for a few test shots vs the 18-250mm. It is clearly better than the original version, as I preferred the 18-250 to my old 18-55 for its brighter colous and slightly better sharpness. I have not compared the upgraded 18-55 directly to the 16-45 yet, but I'll have to do that eventually..

I've read a lot about the 16-45 because it's been my main lens for a couple of years. Not everyione has had the same positive experience as me, but from what I've read, most owners are very happy. A few copies of the DA 16-45 show heavy CA , including the one tested by Photozone. I had to send mine back for repair under warranty because sharpness went off. It's back now and as sharp as ever. It is my sharpest zoom, beating the 55-300 in pure resolution. Colour and contrast are very similar between these two lenses. Their similar rendering, low distortion, decent speed and wide range make for an excellent team.

causey · 04-25-2010, 06:46 AM

Sigma mini wide 28mm isn't a 'cheap' lens any more. If you got it for less than $50+ shipping, which is half the price of a second hand copy of the kit lens AL II, you are lucky. The copy I had (before replacing it with a Vivitar (Komine)) was clearly better than the kit lens, even if at f8 the difference (if any) was less obvious.

audiobomber · 04-25-2010, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by catalina

IS was on, and at 55mm
I would think 1/250 should not be an issue.

Shutter speed shouldn't be a problem, but at f/13 you're into the range where diffraction robs some of the sharpness. But what does it matter? You aren't basing your dissatisfaction on one photo. You aren't happy with the images you're getting with the kit lens. That's enough reason to upgrade IMO. Affinity for the gear and confidence that it's going to deliver are a big part of this hobby. Dump that kit lens.

causey · 04-25-2010, 06:57 AM

The area of the log you focused on seems sharp to me. (Even enlarged, the pic is too small to make sense of sharpness--but, again, the other one doesn't seem sharper than it. Shoot the same subject and use the same parameters: focal length, aperture, etc.--and then give us the original images, not downsized versions.) If the accused lack of sharpness concerns the background region, that might be a matter of how you focused: the log was close, and you used the lens at 55mm, which will cause background blur even at f13. (Also, for a comparison, use f8 rather than f13.)

Marc Sabatella · 04-25-2010, 01:59 PM

Larger pics, or 100% crops of the in focus areas, would be necessary. But it would also help to post similar images. With the log, it's not at all clear where the focus is even supported to be. But at the posted size, the sharpest area of the picture doesn't look obviously worse than the dog picture to me. Shooting at f/13 isn't helping, as dan says - if you want to maximize sharpness, you need to shoot at around f/8 usually. That in itself could why when you pixel peep at 100% you can presumably see more sharpness in the dog shot.

**kiwi_jono** · 04-25-2010, 03:58 PM

Ok, after reviewing some more of my 18-55 images last night (to find some to post here), I will eat my humble pie and say I can't really pin my problems on the lense itself. I think for me its mostly the way I'm shooting suits a higher focal length range a the moment (hence 28 - 70). Photos taken with the Sigma versus 18-55 taken in similar conditions are actually very similar in quality.

I have noticed (very unscientifically) quite a few of my soft / blurry shots taken with 18-55 at around 1/100 with SR on while there are a quite lot of clean images at 1/30 - 1/60. I try to brace camera / myself where I can and squeeze shutter (as I needed to with my old SLR for good results). Photos taken with remote / self timer (SR off) look pretty good for sharpness - but then the camera was sitting on a solid base (like tripod) anyway.
Next I will have to take some more shots in more controlled circumstances to convince myself it not just me (maybe I just have shakey hands or active imagination)!

Really helps to have the broad spectrum of comments (including critical) on these forums. Thanks.

04-24-2010, 04:19 PM	#1
catalina Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 44	Replacement for 18-55mm II kit lens I was starting to lose faith in my recently purchased K10d (sorry Forum members). I was shooting with an 18-55 II Pentax kit lens I picked up on another forum. I was disappointed in the results (soft images). Luckily I got a great deal on a Pentax 55-300, and started shooting. WOW...what an improvement. I love my K10d again! Can anyone recommend another lens I can use in place of the 18-55 that will give IQ results equal to or better than the 55-300? Either Pentax or 3rd party in a similar type focal length to the 18-55. I was thinking of the 16-45 Pentax, but see mixed reviews. Thanks, Neil

04-24-2010, 05:19 PM	#2
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	Me too I'm interested too. While my 18-55 is Ok, somehow I'm just not clicking with it. The results I get with my 55 - 300 are on average a lot better (IQ wise) for some reason. Recently picked up a cheap Sigma AF 28 - 70 UC (second hand but in excellent condition) for about US$18. Although not very wide and its not a perfect lense, I'm getting some great shots out of it (quality wise) - dispite some comments on some forums saying UC stands for "Utter Crap", I'm finding it better IQ wise than 18-55. It seams to be pretty sharp at any aperture from f3.5 right through to 16! Very useful range and no noticeable CA. Looking at the reviews for the 16-45, it seems to me that there is quite a bit of CA which would probably bother me bit. Quite happy with the CA on 18-55 (and the Sigma) and the 55 - 300 can show some (although quite acceptable to me). Would also be interested in peoples opinions.

04-25-2010, 06:26 AM	#6
catalina Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 44 Original Poster	Replacement for 18-55mm II kit lens - images Thanks to all the responders for the insight, and links to the related articles... I have attached a couple of images here. Flickr: ChrisCraft75's Photostream Both taken in bright sun. The "anchor" was with the 18-55 f13 @ 1/250 at 55mm The "dog" was with the 55-300 f8 @ 1/1500 at 78mm I chose these 2 for the texture. The log (18-55) just does not have the clarity. Even if I suspected front/back focus issues, I would expect somewhere in the image to be sharper. In the one of the dog however, the hair is crisp, and there is great contrast. I realize the 18-55 shot was at a slightly slower shutter speed, but the IS was on, and at 55mm I would think 1/250 should not be an issue. I realize these are only 2 images, but they are indicative of what I have been seeing. I dont have any shots with the 18-55 that impress me. I even have a "cheap" Promaster (Sigma miniwide) 28mm f2.8 prime that does equal or better. Flickr: ChrisCraft75's Photostream

04-25-2010, 06:57 AM	#10
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	The area of the log you focused on seems sharp to me. (Even enlarged, the pic is too small to make sense of sharpness--but, again, the other one doesn't seem sharper than it. Shoot the same subject and use the same parameters: focal length, aperture, etc.--and then give us the original images, not downsized versions.) If the accused lack of sharpness concerns the background region, that might be a matter of how you focused: the log was close, and you used the lens at 55mm, which will cause background blur even at f13. (Also, for a comparison, use f8 rather than f13.) Last edited by causey; 04-25-2010 at 07:28 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best replacement kit lens for K-X	Eagle_Friends	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	02-21-2010 10:58 AM
Replacement Kit Lens - 16-45/4 or 20-40/2.8	inneyeseakay	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	11-16-2009 07:15 AM
replacement lens kit	mec17	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	11-12-2009 12:50 AM
Replacement Lens Hood for 18-55mm Kit Lens?	atnbirdie	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	07-20-2008 03:19 PM
Kit lens replacement	miniman82	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-04-2008 09:55 PM

04-24-2010, 08:21 PM	#3
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	You might want to check out these recently started threads: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/98290-upgrade-kit-16-45mm.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/98895-da-16-45...i-testing.html (No significant CA with the 16-45mm in my experience. There is some, but not 'quite a bit'.)

04-24-2010, 08:34 PM	#4
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	You might also post some of the 18-55 images you are unhappy with. Not that there aren't better lenses, but without knowing anything about your background or experience, I would say that most complaints about soft images are not the lens' fault...

04-24-2010, 09:02 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The 18-55, although not the sharpest lens in the shed, can perform beautifully at its sweet spot of f/8. I'd also be interested to see some of the images you're not happy with captured by this much maligned lens.

04-25-2010, 06:41 AM	#7
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I upgraded to a 16-45 from the original 18-55 and found a striking improvement in colour and contrast. I like having 16mm at the wide end and sharpness difference is noticeable. My 18-55 was not defective in any way, just kind of dull looking and too soft at max apertures. I also have a new 18-55 DA L. I've only used it for a few test shots vs the 18-250mm. It is clearly better than the original version, as I preferred the 18-250 to my old 18-55 for its brighter colous and slightly better sharpness. I have not compared the upgraded 18-55 directly to the 16-45 yet, but I'll have to do that eventually.. I've read a lot about the 16-45 because it's been my main lens for a couple of years. Not everyione has had the same positive experience as me, but from what I've read, most owners are very happy. A few copies of the DA 16-45 show heavy CA , including the one tested by Photozone. I had to send mine back for repair under warranty because sharpness went off. It's back now and as sharp as ever. It is my sharpest zoom, beating the 55-300 in pure resolution. Colour and contrast are very similar between these two lenses. Their similar rendering, low distortion, decent speed and wide range make for an excellent team.

04-25-2010, 06:46 AM	#8
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Sigma mini wide 28mm isn't a 'cheap' lens any more. If you got it for less than $50+ shipping, which is half the price of a second hand copy of the kit lens AL II, you are lucky. The copy I had (before replacing it with a Vivitar (Komine)) was clearly better than the kit lens, even if at f8 the difference (if any) was less obvious.

04-25-2010, 06:52 AM	#9
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by catalina IS was on, and at 55mm I would think 1/250 should not be an issue. Shutter speed shouldn't be a problem, but at f/13 you're into the range where diffraction robs some of the sharpness. But what does it matter? You aren't basing your dissatisfaction on one photo. You aren't happy with the images you're getting with the kit lens. That's enough reason to upgrade IMO. Affinity for the gear and confidence that it's going to deliver are a big part of this hobby. Dump that kit lens.

04-25-2010, 01:59 PM	#11
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Larger pics, or 100% crops of the in focus areas, would be necessary. But it would also help to post similar images. With the log, it's not at all clear where the focus is even supported to be. But at the posted size, the sharpest area of the picture doesn't look obviously worse than the dog picture to me. Shooting at f/13 isn't helping, as dan says - if you want to maximize sharpness, you need to shoot at around f/8 usually. That in itself could why when you pixel peep at 100% you can presumably see more sharpness in the dog shot.

04-25-2010, 03:58 PM	#12
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	Ok, after reviewing some more of my 18-55 images last night (to find some to post here), I will eat my humble pie and say I can't really pin my problems on the lense itself. I think for me its mostly the way I'm shooting suits a higher focal length range a the moment (hence 28 - 70). Photos taken with the Sigma versus 18-55 taken in similar conditions are actually very similar in quality. I have noticed (very unscientifically) quite a few of my soft / blurry shots taken with 18-55 at around 1/100 with SR on while there are a quite lot of clean images at 1/30 - 1/60. I try to brace camera / myself where I can and squeeze shutter (as I needed to with my old SLR for good results). Photos taken with remote / self timer (SR off) look pretty good for sharpness - but then the camera was sitting on a solid base (like tripod) anyway. Next I will have to take some more shots in more controlled circumstances to convince myself it not just me (maybe I just have shakey hands or active imagination)! Really helps to have the broad spectrum of comments (including critical) on these forums. Thanks.