16-45mm vs WR 18-55mm vs Samsun 18-55mm field comparison

Hello, out shooting today and had time to swap lenses with the K-7 on a tripod and juggle the lenses. Made a quick and dirty collage of the crops for your comments. I'll try and get crops of the centre done and be a bit more scientific but here you are.
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/IMGP7930.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/2010-04-212.jpg[/IMG]

I know the method sucks but the 16-45m gets it but not by a huge margin.

The wr lens looks as good but there is a big price difference in the wr lens and the 16-45mm.

Yes, WR is not shabby and you get body only for £775 and with kit for £799 sooooo that's £50ish for a 2nd hand WR 18-55mm!!!!

This wonderful, you should also do the corner to get a complete picture.

The image size for the WR lens is smaller. Was it taken at a different focal length?

Unfortunately the focus was near infinity and both the corners with stuff in are close and will be out of focus. I'll have a look later see if there's any merit.

Andrew, slack fast and dirty cropping in Picasa. Sorry. I put the 16-45mm close to 18mm as were the others.

I don't use Picasa, so don't know its limitations. Can you make a fixed size crop (e.g. 600x400 pixels)?

Even with the cropping problem, it's an interesting result. I was expecting it to be close at f8 - but not so close as this at f4. I cannot feel my wallet twitching.

Andrew, yes but got chores to do first. Day off = photography jaunt + cooking, cleaning etc

I'd definitely choose the WR, better value.

Cleaned up the crops. Did some learning on the Gimp.
100% crops from the images, all 400x300 pixels.

[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/croptestimprov.jpg[/IMG]

It would be useful to see a comparison of the whole shot, as there is more to a lens than sharpness. Vignetting, distortion etc.

I'm getting better using Gimp.
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/kitfullcomp.jpg[/IMG]

All dropped down to 400 pixels across the top.

To be quite honest at this resolution I can't see much if any differences. The 16-45mm at f8 needed a little more exposure but there were variations in the light levels. The 16-45 measured 19mm on picasa. I don't think I could do this for fun!

Give the gorse another week to ten days and let the sun come up another hour and they all would look fine on a postcard and probably A4 too. (maybe bigger still)

Very interesting results dougf8, thanks.

On my monitor, the full frames are close to identical, apart from slight variations in lighting. The 100% crops seem to show a *slight* advantage to the 16-45mm. I may be wrong, but I bet the differences seen on screen would not survive printing the whole image at A4 and possibly even larger.

My wallet still isn't twitching.

Andrew

it is also the difference between f/4 and f/5.6. that to me is huge!