16 - 45 or LX3 ?

Ok yesterday it was the 18 - 250 or the Fuji S100FS. From replies, both here and the Fuji forum on dpreview, I have kicked that idea out.

I am going to keep my K200D and was looking at getting an LX3.

My fear is that if I do get one and start using it that I will become lazy and leave the Pentax at home and then kick myself for shots where the IQ could have been so much better if I had taken the Pentax instead of the LX3, so is it better to get the LX3 or but the 16 -45 ?, is the CA issue in the photozone review as bad as they make out ?

The 16-45mm is a lovely lens and I use it most of the time. Never mind reviews, just make some great photos with it.

The LX3 will not be in the same league. No bridge camera will match the quality of a DSLR.

I don't doubt the quality of the LX3, but I don't see the point in having a dSLR and then buying additional cameras rather than lenses? I expect the replies to be the same as yesterdays in favour of the 16-45mm lens, which is highly rated by everyone.

A quick googling suggests the LX3 is just over £300 which is quite a lot more than the 16-45mm.

I believe CA can be quite bad wide open, but it's one of the easier things to fix PP.

Are you looking for a P&S for a reason (size?)

Cat among the pigeons. Why not go for the Tamron 17-50 which at f2.8 is faster but not such a compelling deal at £300 as the 16-45 at £200. I find it to be an excellent lens. I wouldn't bother with the LX3 if you have the Pentax already but each to his and her own.

Mike

Both are also very differend cameras, your shooting style would be very different with the LX3 then with the K200D. They arent the same thing and can't be really compared in that matter.

The sensor of the LX3 is smaller so you have more noise when shooting at high iso, with the K200D you can get it higher with less noise which resulting in shorter exposure time and so in a sharper photo

The CA is quite easy to remove in todays software, not really something to worry about if you post process your photos any way.

The question is "16-45 or LX3?". I'd say the answer should be 16-45 AND LX3 (or similar). I have an LX2. Does it make me leave the dSLR at home? Not when it would be convenient for me to take the dSLR.

I hear the LX3 gives excellent image quality for a compact camera, but bear in mind that its lens only reaches the equivalent of 40mm on your Pentax - providing hardly any telephoto capability. Also, as well as noise problems, it won't be so quick and enjoyable to actually use.

Many thanks for your replies. I sometimes convince myself that I need a compact, and that is the reason why I "looked " at an LX3. However when I look at the 16-45 which covers the same as the LX3, but cost £100 less and think of the IQ difference, then it just does not make sense for me. Others will be able to pay the extra and be happy and it comes down to what you are willing to accept in terms of IQ, now the only question I have left is one that has been asked before I am sure, is the 16 -45 worth getting if you have the 18 -55 Mk11. I have to say that I find mine sharp but is the difference worth paying £200 ??

I have both and I'm happy to own both for different purposes, but the high quality choice is always the 16-45mm.

I replaced the kit lens (mkII) on my K10d with the 16-45 and at first was dissapointed - the CA can be quite pronounced and the exposure was difficult to get right. But after getting used to it I never ceased to be amazed by how alive this lens is! The real-life experience is wonderful sharpness with dynamic colour and depth. And that extra 2mm on the wide end really does make a difference.

(BTW - I have a 3meg sony cameraphone which is always with me and takes wonderful snaps of the kids for those moments when you're not expecting to be taking a photo.) If I'm going to be taking pics, then the 16-45 is my walkaround lens and I've got a small Lowepro bag that the lens and body+grip just squeezes into. If you're used to an APS-C sensor, then a bridge simply won't do!

I've owned both of those lenses at the same time, and couldn't consistently detect any difference in sharpness or colour between the two at any aperture. The 16-45 however has a better wide end: significantly wider and with less distortion and vignetting. That alone may make it worthwhile for you, especially if you don't have an ultra wide lens like a Pentax 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm.

But I replaced mine for a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to get a larger maximum aperture as well as generally high image quality.