18-55 DA replacement

At over double cost, the 16-45 should be significantly better than the 18-55. Or doesn't price count at all for some members?

It isn't. The 16-45 would be about £170. You can get an 18-55mm II for £25-30. The IQ of the 16-45 is not twice as good. It certainly is not 6 times as good.

In my opinion if you have a good MKII kit lens you'll see better return for your money from getting a good prime lens in your most used focal length.

This would be my personal preference too. However, I reckon I have a good copy of the kit lens and would still comment that its weakest performance is widest angle and wide open. If you think you'd use a 16-45 mostly below 20mm and closer to f4, then I reckon that is where you'd see the biggest improvement in image quality compared to the 18-55.

Can I take it, then, that neither of you have ever been able to justify the purchase of lenses additional to the standard kit lenses (18-55, 50-200 or 55-300 DAL)?

When one begins to argue that a lens is not worth buying unless the 'improvement gained' is in direct proportion to the cost multiple (i.e. for twice the price one should get twice the performance), one is at great risk of being hoisted by one's own petard

Sadly for us all, the reality is that the law of diminishing returns applies to lenses, indeed photographic equipment in general, as much as it does to any other consumer durable.

Best wishes and no offense intended,

Jon

If you got a lens twice as good as the £50 kit lens for just £100, how awesome would that be?

I'm not sure I know what "twice as good" means ..........

Jon,(prsjnb)

"that a lens is not worth buying unless the 'improvement gained' is in direct proportion to the cost multiple (i.e. for twice the price one should get twice the performance."

Jon, you wrote this, not Terry or me. I didn't imply it. Terry was having a bit of fun(I think) and my use of the word NOT kind of indicates a lack of relationship, you understand negatives, of course you do. My point is the 16-45 is NOT worth the £150 outlay over a good kit lens. Even with your breaking news of diminishing returns, its still not worth it. Especially a WR18-55, stuff the 16-45 even as a direct swap.

The reputation the 16-45 has I guess comes from the time of the Mk1 kit lens. I've had two and both underwhelmed.

Thanks for the information about diminishing returns and consumer durables, one could go into teaching or work in business with that kind of knowledge.

The 18-55 MkII is a fine kit lens, if you've got a good one I say hang on to it and get yourself something which expands your abilities rather than duplicating AGAIN a range which you already have twice.

TBH even the MKI 18-55 is unusually good for it's class.

I upgraded my 18-55 MkI to a 16-45 and I love that lens, but I didn't consider it a straight swap, I bought the 16-45 because I wanted the wide angle capability. I think if you make that substitution JUST for image quality reasons you'll find the value for money is suspect at best.

If you're going to upgrade something in your range for IQ reasons, I'd go for the 55-300 to give you a better quality long end than the 18-250.

Doug,

Terry may indeed have been having 'a bit of fun', but did it not occur to you before responding, how shall I put it, so forcefullythat I might have been doing the same? Indeed, in ending my post I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that I had made it clear that whilst what I wrote was intended to be provocative (notice the insertion of at the end of the second paragraph), it was not intended to cause offense, viz

Based on personal experience, we have both formed views as to the relative merits of the 18-55 and 16-45 that are equally valid: they just happen to be different. We seem to differ, however, in the extent to which we feel this limited experience allows us to make sweeping statements regarding the suitability, or otherwise, of either lens. This, I believe, is evident from my original post in this thread:

I will end by making clear that I have no wish to engage in a 'war of words' with you, or anyone else for that matter, on the forum; especially when the issue at stake is as trivial, in the overall scheme scheme of things, is the right to hold a personal preference for one lens over another.

I hope our next exchange proves less incendiary

Best wishes,

Jon

Exactly. I would have thought it obvious that one only gets incremental improvements for spending more on lenses. The fact that these improvements do not justify the cost for some should in no way be extrapolated by those people to the fact that the improvements are not important to others.

We all have different requirements and if yours are met sufficiently by the kit lens, go out and have fun with it. But that is not the point of this thread, as should also be darned obvious from the OP.

S'cuse me folks, but isn't the best way of conveying the relative merits of two lenses to post photos taken by them - of the same subject, at both full frame and at at 100%?

Looking forward to seeing some ..........

Andrew

You did already and posted in the thread.

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/16-45mm-vs-wr-18-55mm-vs-samsun-18-55mm-f...

Yes, I remember it well.

I was hoping to see some photos also from those folks who claim that the 16-45 is a worthwhile upgrade from the 18-55mm ....

Andrew

It's all been said here and on the other thread, so I don't see how continuing this argument is of any use to the OP's question. Let's just accept that some people think the 16-45 is a good value upgrade to the kit lens, and some do not- an opinion which can only really be formed by using both lenses for an extended period, although pixel peeping can be interesting too. But what other options have people tried? I have heard good things about a f2.8 Tamron standard zoom, for example?

Yes, I'm happier with the Tamron but its another £80 on top of the 16-45. However its 1.375664 times better (seasonally adjusted).