18-55 kit lens - mk1 v mk2

I'm reasonably happy with both my 18-55 lenses, a Mk1, and a Samsung. But with the 16-45 having come down in price, I'm tempted to upgrade. What benefit will it give me? e.g. Will I only see the higher quality on 8 by 10 prints, with no visible benefit at 6 by 4, or will I need to go even larger to see anything?

Are there other benefits with this lens?

Thanks

I think the main benefits of the 16-45 over the 18-55 (either version) are the extra 2mm at the wide end (this is actually a suprisingly noticeable jump) and the fact it has a constant f4 aperture (so it's faster at the long end).

If you took the same photo with both lenses somewhere in the middle (say 35mm) and at f8 I doubt you'd see any difference in the results whatever size you blew the prints up to. It's that extra stop of speed and 2mm of width you're paying for really so it'll depend on your personal priorities.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

The 18-55 is f4.5 at 42mm, if I remember rightly, so the 16-45 has virtually no speed advantage. I also couldn't detect any extra sharpness compared to my 18-55 II on K10D - at any length or aperture.

The 16-45 however does have lower distortion and vignetting at the wide end, as well as the two extra interesting millimeters, and it is generally sharper than the mk I 18-55.

Interestingly, I was reading What Digital camera in tescos the other day when I was shopping with the wife.

They had some Pentax lens reviews. They were comparing the 18-55II kit lens, the 16-45 and the 16-50.

According to their imatest ratings the markII kit lens was quite a bit sharper across the board (i.e in the 18-55 range and the 18-55's aperture range) then the 16-45.

WDC also reckoned that at 35mm the kit lens (mark1) was sharper than some primes they had tested the previous month.

I might do some tests tomorrow, since i havent sold my K100D and kit yet and have just got my K20D.

Though which camera would you prefer to see the lenses on?

K20D, because it could reveal more detail, and preferably with manual focus to eliminate any AF issues.

I have tried the DA and DA II forms of the lens on both the K10D and the K20D. Both versions are good kit lens and I do find the DA II version to be sharper and the DA version is very good by it's own merits. I would recommend the MK II lens myself if it is within budget if anyone is looking to get a 18-55mm lens.

I will post up a few comparisons. Taken on K20D, tripod, 2 second timer. jpeg *** - cause i didnt have the time to convert raw ect.

18mm f/8 - the two below are from the same the same photos.

[IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/RaV3nous1/18mmf8center-1.jpg[/IMG]

Larger - link

[IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/RaV3nous1/18mmf8.jpg[/IMG]

Larger - link

55mm f/5.6 - both below are from the same photos.

[IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/RaV3nous1/55mmf56.jpg[/IMG]

Larger - link

[IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/RaV3nous1/55mmf56left.jpg[/IMG]


I will post up some direct links to the full photos in awhile.

The original 18-55mm is amazingly close to the Mrk II at the centre. but it drops off a huge amount after that.

The 2nd crop @ 55mm looks like its out of focus, but its from the same image as the one above it.

Hope that helps someone.. Might even do a quick test on my K100D to see if it would be a worthwhile 'upgrade'

Certainly a big difference. My Mk 1. seems OK at f/6.3. I've never used it wide open, but you can even see a difference at f/8. I'll have to see if I've done any shots other than in comparison with the 10-20mm Sigma. I think I did one at around 24mm and a test with the Pentax A 24mm f/2.8.

It might be that there's a variability with the Mk 1, I've never seen anything as bad as your Mk 1 pics. At first I thought it was camera shake, but it's not too bad around the wedding photo, but still not as good as the Mk. 2.

shim

Im almost tempted to say my mk1 isnt a very good copy. Though it is only very recently, just before I bought my K20D that I started noticing it..

https://www.pentaxuser.com/photo/Crosshaven-Cork-3022/large that is at f6.7 on my K100D. centre is sharp but stones and hill on the left are noticeably worse.

I looked at my samples for 55mm @ f8, and its almost the same story as f5.6
no sure, and im no expert at any of this, so maybe my copy is a bit dodgy, who knows

Here's a comparison between a mk1 and the Sigma 10-20mm.
Both at f/8 and zoomed to 20mm (confirmed by Exif data)
both are centre of frame. Available light so low contrast.

100% Crops Enlarge to see diff clearer. Unmodified Jpegs.

[IMG]http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh387/penbx/d38f04fd.jpg[/IMG]

Quite clearly the mk1 is better than the Sigma. Is it a good mk1
or a poor Sigma?.... all I can say is that I've no problem with the
IQ of the mk1 and if the Sigma was the same I would be quite happy.

Note the words MAC and SERIAL on the red background are unreadable on the
Sigma shot. The same goes for the lettering on the stopwatch in front of the other watch.

I'm going to have to do some more tests on the Sigma and send it
back to SRS if it doesn't do better.

The data on the modem sticker is refers to an obsolete
account. I'm now with Virgin cable.

shim

I thought that the mark1 was renowned for being very good (for a kit lens) at the centre of the frame and very soft at the edges??

I've never noticed any particular problem with the edges on any photos I've taken. I've never deliberately tested it because I've never had much reason to be concerned.

shim

I hope that isn't your current Broadband Wireless key that you've put on here for all to see....

It's possible that the Sigma lens isn't focused accurately. Select the best from several different manual focus attempts to eliminate focus problems.

This is how all lens tests should be done, unless you're just testing the focusing.

That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but more people are realising that it's less than super sharp at the edges as they upgrade their cameras from 6 to 10 to 14.6 MP.

Sample variation might explain why some are better than others.