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

Sorry, but I don't see any "huge" differences either between the lenses or between shots taken at different apertures. Can you explain where you see them?

Bearing in mind that the lighting/exposure is slightly different from one shot to the next, I don't think it is really possible to discern differences that you can definitely atttribute to the lens. Much more testing with different subjects would, I think, be needed to do that.

I think the photos taken by dougf8 confirm that the kit lenses do amazingly well at 19mm wide open and at f8 when compared with a more expensive and highly regarded lens, even if you pixel peep.

Andrew

Lower price, slightly longer reach (albeit at the expense of less of a wide end), weather sealing & image quality which (at this stage) appears to be very close (if not marginally better on the shots shown so far) to the 16-45. The WR is looking very attractive. You can pick them up for peanuts too.

Would be interesting to see the test repeated at 30mm and 45mm.

The 18-55mm MK2 kit lens (same optically as WR, I think) is pretty good at 50mm from f8 onwards. I've tested it a couple of times against a 50mm prime and although it's outclassed at f5.6, there is very little difference at f8. I've also tested the kit against a 28mm prime and again, it is bested by the prime up to f5.6, but holds its own at f8 onwards.

Andrew

from ~ F8 onwards I would expect most if not all reasonable lenses to be diffraction limited

(for those with less knowledge of optical physics, I mean at small apertures the lens is close enough to perfect that the dominant factor in resolution is the size of the aperture rather than the glass quality)

When I first got a 16-45mm I wondered why I wasn't blown away, considering how highly regarded it is by all and sundry. The reviews suggest the 16-45mm has its strong performance in the middle of the zoom.

I guess most of the comparisons with the kit lenses will have been made on the original lenses. (how awful to have a stock canon/nikon, aren't you glad you bought Samsung/Pentax)

Anyway I know these are limited conditions of my particular test.

Photo zone does credit the Pentax kit lens being a step up from the competition kit lenses.

Maybe the answer to that conundrum is in here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

Andrew

Andrew, might have been helpful if you'd told me before I bought the 16-45mm that the WR18-55mm is fine in the wild.

I guess the various incarnations of the 18-55mm are continuing a Pentax tradition. The old K, M and A 50/55mm lenses are still absolutely superb, and they were the kit lenses of their day. The new products are keeping the reputation going!

In contrast, I'm reliably informed that the Sony kit zoom is horrible...

Has anyone tested the 18-55mm WR against the DA L version? I have the latter and would be interested to see whether there are any optical differences between it and the WR version.

I don't know of any side by side tests, but as far as I know the DA 18-55 MKII, DAL 18-55 and DA 18-55 WR all use the same optical formula.

If that's the case then they should be very similar or identical.

Sure they are similar, the Schneider-K Samsung doesn't perform too differently from the 3rd gen WR Pentax or the go-to upgrade route 16-45mm.

Hvaing spent the last three weeks abroad with only my mark I 18-55 for company, I started to wonder whether an upgrade to a 16-45 might be beneficial.

How odd and apposite, you supply a perfect answer upon the day of my return. Great work. Very scholarly.

I'll save my money, I think. Although the extra couple of wide mms might be useful in a tight spot and I guess the more expensive lens will perform better at wider apertures.

Thanks for posting this.

Regards,

Andrew

The WR has a different coating though

Errr ....... not sure I can offer a sensible reply
I have asked previously about the difference between the 16-45 and 18-55 and IIRC, received replies that implied "chalk and cheese".

As I'm a bit of a geek, I tend to prefer laboratory tests (MTF's) rather than anecdotal evidence so I didn't bite. Actually, that's not quite true, I did pitch at a couple of second user 16-45s on Fleabay but the prices went beyond what I thought I should pay, given that I wasn't entirely convinced.

In the end, I gave up the chase for a 16-45. At apertures from f8 onwards, I've seen nothing that convinced me that it was any better than the Mk2 kit. Whilst it may well be better at f5.6 and wider, I have primes that cover some of the range anyway. Now, if anyone has a "cheap" 20mm or 24mm prime that they don't use ......


Andrew

I think the term "Kit Lens" implies that in some way it is an inferior product to be discarded at the earliest opportunity, but these results show that it is a very strong performer for very little money. Maybe we should re-access it's abilities and start using it more.

My wife thinks I keep telling her to use the kit lens because it's inferior...lol...
truth is I want the constant aperture zooms for use in the studio with manual studio lights and the kit lens is cheaper to replace! under most uses the kit lens is fine!.