18-55 II or 16-45?

Hello all,

I am a K100D Super owner, which is my first SLR of any kind. The deal SRS was offering meant it was cheaper than most decent compact cameras so I took the plunge.

I have been using the 18-55 mk I kit lens, mainly taking landscapes and general pics on walkabout at the weekends (still mainly on auto but I am starting to figure out what the rest does). I have to admit it has been great fun and the pictures are better than anything I have ever taken before.

I have been offered the mk II kit lens for about 15 quid or the 16-45 for about 130 Quid and I was wondering if either would be a real upgrade on my current kit lens? Is there somewhere I can see a comparison of IQ between the two?

Given the price difference I am tempted to go with the mk II 18-55 and keep some money away for a prime lens (or a K20D) in the near future, assuming I get more serious about photography, but I am not sure the mk II will give me a significant improvement on my current lens.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Some previous discussion can be found here

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Pentax-SMC-DA-1855mm-F3556-II-9029

I bought the 16-45 and am very happy with it !!

Thanks for the link.

I guess I need to figure out how to search on the forum! ::

Asked the same thing when I joined the forum.
It was a toss up between the MKII, the 16-45mm and the Sigma 17-70mm macro.
Bought the 16-45mm in the end but always wondered if I had done the wrong thing so when a 17-70mm came up a few weeks ago for a decent price I bought it.

17-70mm is going back up for sale.

Why? Never use it, or is there an issue?

To me the 16-45mm is just a nicer lens.
The colours are better, it focuses nearly as close as the 17-70mm, the brokeh is superb .. it's just lovely to use.

Also, I have a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 if needed so the 17-70mm is just sitting there doing nothing.

I've been using the 18-55mm II quite happily for eBay pictures and someone asked me "is it a stock photo or a picture of the actual item?" so I guess it must be pretty good.

However, the 16-45mm is clearly better and continues to be clearly better even on the higher resolution of the K20D.

Regular readers will know I'm not a fan of independent lenses...

I agree the 16-45mm is a nice lens to use..

I don't have the 16-45 but £130 seems a good price. If you don't appreciate the upgrade then I'm sure you could easily sell it on ebay & probably make a small profit.

I expect to see a lot of the mark II kit lens up for sale after xmas as people are buying them with the K20d in order to qualify for the cashback (me included).
I will probably keep my copy as for the price, it's worth keeping as a backup, I'm sure most people new to Pentax will do the same, but those upgrading to the K20d who already have better glass will still need to buy it to get the cashback & would probably be looking to offload it quickly.

Of course, the more there are for sale, the lower the prices will be. So if you do miss the extra 10mm then you can always sell the 16-45 & pick up a 18-55 II cheaply.

I recently upgraded from the MkI to the 16-45. I'm really pleased I did - it is a much better performer than the kit lens (though perhaps the MkII is slightly better). Also you get an extra 2mm wide which is great (for me at least as I'd prefer the 2mm wide than the 10mm long). And unlike the kit lens it consistently performs very well at its widest length.

I also considered the Sigma 17-70 and opted for the 16-45 principally due to the colour rendition (something Pentax glass is known for), which to my eyes was considerably better judging from photos on flickr and elsewhere. I haven't been disappointed - the colours the 16-45 produces are superb.

You won't see a difference between the two 18-55 lenses, I know, I have one of each which I've tried on my K110d ( same sensor as your K100) If you want a better lens then follow the advice here and try the 16-45.
The price is definately OK.

The 16-45 is a great lens, i paid £240 for mine last September so at £130 it's a bargain and you won't be dissapointed.

I saw a difference between the two I had with my K10D: greater edge sharpness with the II.

More difficult was to see any difference between the 18-55 II and my 16-45. So I replaced the 16-45 with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to get something substantially different and better from the 18-55.

On a K10D you will see a difference, madactuary has a K100D super, which has a smaller, superb, 6meg sensor.
At this resolution the improvement is not noticable.

I reckon I would have seen a difference with my 6 megapxel *ist DS too, with which I did notice the relatively soft edges of my 18-55.

The 18-55 II I have is more uniform in sharpness accross the frame.