Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 7, 2007, 12:55 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

And here is a horizantal crop on the other side of the frame

Pentax SMC DA 18-55 @ 18mm 1/180 sec f11 Landscape mode
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 12:56 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Pentax SMC DA 16-45 @ 16mm 1/350 sec f11 Landscape mode

Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 12:56 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Pentax SMC DA 10-17 @ 17mm 1/180 sec f11 Landscape mode

Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 1:03 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

So while taking the images and really cropping them, I have come to the following observations.
  1. The 18-55 kit lens is much better than what I believe that people think.[/*]
  2. The 16-45 lens when compared to the 18-55 kit is overpriced for its performance.[/*]
  3. The 10-17 lens at 17 is very rectlinear and as such holds it own very nicely.[/*]
This set of comparisions has a lot of contrast, shadows, areas in direct sun, a fair amount of detail is available along with objects in the distance. A little bit of everything.

I really did not expect the 16-45 to fair a poorly as it did in contrast to the 18-55.

Other eyes might come to a different conclusion......
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 1:20 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
jachol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. England
Posts: 1,201
Default

Hi,
After looking at all pics several times. I'll stick my neck out and vote for the 18/55mm kit lens, I'm not seeing anything with these shots that would induce me to buy the DA16/45, at least not in this instance. ... Jack
jachol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 1:54 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Interesting collection of pictures. I've been pleased with the kit lens and haven't felt any need to upgrade - your pictures have just re-affirmed my decision. The constant f4 of the 16-45 might be useful for some, but now that they've come out with the 16-50 2.8, I think the 16-45 becomes sort-of an orphan. Those who need a faster lens would go that route, while others like me will continue to use the kit lens.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 2:06 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Funny(or rather - sad) to see how the camera underexposes with the 16-45. I also must say that the difference between 16 and 18 mm is bigger than I thought it would be. Otherwise your test confirms what I have been suspecting. I bought the 16-45 as a kit lens (since I'm a HQ lens snob:roll but haven't been that impressed with it. I mainly use it on the widest end. When I don't need that I use the FA 28 mm or the FA 50 mm instead.

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 3:01 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

I for one am not surprised that the 18-55 gave such a good account of itself, though I still would have expected the 16-45 to be superior. That kit lens is really a nice little lens. The 1mm difference between the kit lens and the fisheye seemed much greater than the 1mm difference between the fisheye and the 16-45 though; I remember someone saying that the 18-55 was really closer to 20mm at the wide end, it seems it is probably true.

I wonder why the 16-45 resulted in a different exposure? I wonder if the results would have been different if the exposures were all the same. I noticed the fish-eye seems the softest but maybe that is expected in a special purpose lens.

Great comparison and roundup I/O, thanks for taking the time to do it and share it!

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2007, 9:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

I reshot the same set this afternoon with the sun off to the right rather than the left, and with out standing in the shadows - this time in direct sun. Thus the shadowed areas on the mountain are sunny and vise versa. One thing that I noticed, that had slipped my mind, was that the 18-55 kit lens started hunting, as opposed to the 16-45 that just focused - first time every time. I don't know why the kit (or my version of the kit), takes to hunting so much. I have never had any problems mounting it.... so who knows.

I also shot the other end - at 45, 50 and 55 across 4 lenses...
Pentax SMC DA 16-45/4.0 AF Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens IMP
Pentax SMC DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens
Pentax SMC DA 50-200/4-5.6 ED Zoom Lens
Pentax SMC M 50 f2
I will post them later - right now Steve is not letting any images be posted so, I'll start another thread at the other end for moderate telephoto. I will say that the 16-45 was not underexposed and used the same settings as the other lenses. The 50mm manual was really soft (as quicksand). I have been staring at the 4 - 50mm shots for quite a while now, and its really close (trying to compensate for one lens at 45 and the other at 55, with the other 2 at 50)
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2007, 6:58 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Basement Shows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 408
Default

Personally, I like the exposure that the 16mm gave, but then again I don't think it's too fair of a comparison since the shutter speed was different for that lens.

I like my kit lens, and don't feel that it hunts at all unless I'm shooting something that moves faster than it can lock focus. I too end up pretty much only using it at the wide end, and stick to my A-50mm for that length.

Otehrwise, I like the comparrison other than the shutter speed difference. I have often wondered if the 16-45 was really worht the extra cash for 2mm. That's not even 1 full step back.:-)
Basement Shows is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.