18-55 DA replacement

So I've had my nice Stormtrooper Kx for a while using the 18-55 to practice and get to grips with photography, I also have a the Tammy 18-250 which I have given a (fully reversible) white treatment to match my camera. Now I'd like to invest in a new standard lens. I haven't really a budget yet so just throw some suggestions. I'm tempted by a fish eye or a 10-20ish lens but for later. I'm looking to replace the 18-55 kit that came with the camera with maybe a the DA16-50 2.8 or a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM or a Tammy equivalent. How have the lovely forum members here gone abouts with their standard zoom lens?
Any sensible suggestions welcome.
PS I have considered the 55-300 to complement the kit lens but not looking for a telephoto at the minute

I went for the 16-45mm - the cheapest worthwhile upgrade. Very pleased with it too.

Have a look at this: link

The K-x is just such a camera.

Ditto. The DA16-45 has better IQ than the DA17-70 (though the differences are slight) and is wider as well. However, I will say that if you already have the kit you might look to extend your photographic possibilities instead of duplicating something you already have. There are two good ways to do this.

1. Get a fast 50 and forget about zooming for a while. Plus the large aperture will give you a new look at the world. An A 50/1.7 was going for 40 quid on these very forums. Bargain of a lifetime.

2. Get the DA12-24 for a wide to normal perspective. SRS has them second hand. Since getting this I never use a "standard" zoom.

I'd second the suggestion of a fast fifty - 50mm/1.7 or faster - they're cheap secondhand and do things your zoom lenses simply cannot do. Also very compact.

I think the most cost-effective replacement for the kit lens is the Sigma 17-70, but there are still some Pentax 16-45s around new (try Park Cameras) for less. That said, if you have a good copy of the kit lens, the 16-45 might not be all that much better.

Have you contemplated the fact that the Pentax DA (and DA-L) 3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL (II) is regarded to be the best kit lens around? Don't write it off too soon.

Personally, I think the 18-55mm AL II is a fine lens. For sure, if you make enormous prints or spend a lot of time pixel peeping (at 100% or greater zoom) then some more expensive lenses will be noticeably better at f5.6 and wider. At f8 and onwards, I'm not convinced that you can tell the difference.


Andrew

The kit zoom is a great lens for the money at f8+, but I don't think I had to pixel-peep to notice the improvement with the 16-45 wide-open, and there is far less vignetting too.

How odd, I don't get any noticeable vignetting with the 18-55mm AK II and it's standard hood.

Andrew

Ditto - what vignetting???

Most zooms vignette to some degree, but in most images it's not really noticeable. It depends on how good the lens coverage is and more compact designs will vignette more.

The 18-55mm does vignette a little more than the 16-45mm, depending on focal length as well, but both are very acceptable for general use.

In the days of darkroom printing we were encouraged to darken the corners of a print slightly to concentrate the eye more on the subject matter, so what may be a "defect" in modern lenses is perhaps a good thing after all.

Some of the best photographers have always taken advantage of what many see as faults in equipment.

Vignetting with a zoom lens is more prominent at the wide end and when wide open. It may be too slight to notice at other settings, and of course it's more obvious with a plain rather than busy subject.

Slight darkening of the corners is very easy indeed to correct with Silkypix Delevelop Studio, by the way.

Regarding the Tammy equivalent to the 16-50 (17-50mm F2.8 ): It's great, except often needs an AF adjustment. The K-x does not provide AF adjustment for individual lenses. So, sadly, I can only recommend this lens for the K20D and K-7.

Pentax 16-45: I didn't find provided any huge advantage over the 18-55 II.

How about getting a couple of primes instead? For example, one between 28 and 35mm, plus a 50mm.

The DA16-45 is distinctly better than the kit in at least four objective ways:
1. It is 2mm wider, which is significant in that range.
2. It is a constant f/4 aperture and usable wide open.
3. It is sharper edge to edge which matters if you are photographing flat field objects (architecture mainly).
4. It has less distortion of the field.

Now, whether any of this matters to a particular photographer is a matter of personal priorities.

I'm with JonSchik on this, I see no significant difference in IQ between my 18-55 and 16-45, the latter may have 2mm at the wide end but it is a signicant 10mm wider at the tight end which may well be an issue for some.

The 18-55 is perfectly usable wide open, the constant aperture of the 16-45 is useful in the studio but not of much significance elsewhere

Based on what I've read in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that I must have been terribly unlucky with my first copy of the 18-55mm (Samsung kit lens variant), but amazingly fortunate with my particular copy of the DA 16-45mm, which from first use was a noticeable improvement over that supplied with the camera (GX-10) save one: it's less compact. Using my DA 16-45mm with my K20D has done nothing to diminish my respect for this lens.

My original 18-55 was sold soon after I bought my GX-10 in 2008; ironically to a gentleman in Korea (the home of Samsung) for what seemed an amazingly good price (£55.00 + shipping, as I recall)

When the K7 was released I kept a watchful eye on 'fleabay' for any 18-55mm WRs that had come bundled with the body and wwere being sold, because, I presume, the buyer already had one or more lenses that covered the same range. Eventually, I was able to get one for a very good price to use as a 'sacrificial lens' when shooting outdoors under conditions that the 16-45mm was not designed to cope with. In this capacity, the 18-55mm WR has performed admirably, but, like the my first 18-55, it is still no match for my 16-45.

My experience has not resulted in my dismissing the 18-55 as a 'bad lens', which it most patently is not, but it has convinced me that the improvements offered by the 16-45 more than justify the extra outlay and will continue to do so for as long as they remain available and can be bought for around the £200.00 mark.

Jon

The 18-55's max ap is f4.5 at 42mm, so the 16-45 has little speed advantage. I found there was little difference in sharpness, too, at f4.5 from the mk II version of the 18-55, even at the borders. Lack of constant aperture is irrelevant when using Av mode with f4.5 or smaller up to 42mm.

My WR version that is supposed to be optically the same as the II is not so good. I'm on my second one as well. (I regret selling my II now).

The 16-45's 16-18mm range is valuable, though, if you don't have an ultra wide zoom such as a 12-24mm or 10-20mm.