16-45 vs 24-90

Busy editing my photos last night and I have been comparing the photos taken on the *ist D with the 24-90 on the front and my *ist DL which came with the kit lens (the 18-55)

I noticed that wide open at the wide end there is a lot of vignetting (and yes I do have a UV filter on the front) on the 18-55.

Which means itchy feet time, the DL is going to be replaced by the K10D plus 16-45 or the 16-50....I assume the quality of the 16-50 should be as good as the 16-45, if not much better.

So, how much better is the 16-45 versus 24-90? If there they are the same then great, because the 24-90 is a stunning lens. If the 16-45 is better then I had better start saving.

Those who have 16-45 and 24-90 your opinions please.

Ta
Peter

The 16-45mm is slightly better than the 24-90mm.

If you are a wide-angle photographer by nature, then the choice is clear.

I also prefer the build quality of the 16-45mm. Despite the 24-90mm being excellent I do find its "loose" construction a bit disconcerting.

Which lens exhibits vignetting. The 24-90 certainly shouldn't unless you have too small a hood on it. I've never noticed it with my 16-45 on my D either. Maybe your filter is causing it. You'll see other threads on here about opinions on filters. Personally, I can't see the point of buying a very expensive lens high quality lens, then limiting its performance by putting a cheap piece of glass over the front of it.

It's the 18-55 and the filter is a B+W - so 'cheap' lens and good quality filter....

I would prefer a filter on the front to protect the front element, but in some cases like on my Sigma 15-30 it's just not possible....

I should mention the vignetting is gradual and not 'sudden' so whether it's just catching on the edge of the filter or a general flaw in the lens design I'm not so bothered, but the fact it's there warrants some 'expenditure'.

I should add that the 24-90 is probably one of the best lenses I have bought - I know the limitations about the build quality, but that does not affect image quality thank goodness, but stuck on the front of the"*ist D it is an absolute dream to hold.

I would try taking a few shots with the filter off and see if you get the same/different result. If the lenses image circle is a very close fit to your sensors dimensions or it is slightly off centre (unlikely), vignetting may occur.

Q: Is the vignetting more or less uniform at each corner of the image?

I wouldn't be so sure of that I have both the 16-45 and the 24-90. Both had Hoya Pro-1 UV0 slimline filters to "protect" the lens. Managed to drop the 24-90 (*ist-D and lens slipped round my shoulder while kneeling down so it didn't fall far) and the filter smashed, splintered, and made a terrible mess and I came within a hair's breadth of damaging the front element with the razor sharp pieces. Last year the 16-45 had a similar experience but was in a case - only the filter smashed, but again it could've been really nasty and expensive.

You'd be surprised just how hard the SMC coating is Having had these experiences I'm running without filters now. Makes you a little more careful too

Regarding quality:

Build quality - yes, the 16-45 is better. Much more solid, and the slip-clutch focus ring is great.
Image quality - as John mentions the 16-45 has the edge.

However, I still love the 24-90 on the DSLR If I have a two lens setup I take the 12-24 and 24-90, if I can only take one it's the 16-45. For portraits the 24-90 can be a beauty at 90mm.

I think you'd better start saving

Matt

As JR says, your choice should be made on the basis of the focal length range. Although the 16-45 is said to be slightly better, you know from your own experience that the 24-90 is very good indeed.

For use as a tourist lens (which is mainly what I use zooms for - wandering round a foreign city and not wanting to carry much gear), I would choose the 24-90 on a film body and the 16-45 on a DSLR.

G

Thank you gents....

The thought of purchasing another 24-90 also crossed my mind...what might not have come through in my initial post was the difference between the 18-55 and 24-90 in terms of image quality....seems like the extra expense of the 16-45 is well worth it.



But I await the 16-50 DA* before commiting...

You can use the 16-45 on a professional job if you need to, I wouldn't risk it with the kit lens.