Close-up and personal with the DA 18-55

Hi all,

I thought I'd see what the 18-55 could do close up, yesterday morning. They're obviously not going to be macro, but these seem to have come out pretty well. I've altered the levels and saturation slightly, and sharpened them up a touch, but all four are uncropped and do what I asked of the lens.

I wish I'd noticed, and removed, the seeded grass to the right of the spider though. Still, something else to file away for the next time.



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/125 sec



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/60 sec



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/125 sec



Pentax ist* DL | 18-55 DA (at 55mm) | Iso 200 | F8 @ 1/125 sec

I'll try it with an extension tube sometime, and see what happens.

Cheers

Liam

Nice pictures. The 18-55mm is a useful and versatile lens, and for many could be the only lens they ever need.

Thanks John,

unless I'm doing something specific ie. portraits or macro, I generally only use the 18-55 or the 100-300 myself at the moment. I definitely haven't noticed any of the problems that people have mentioned here before now, so I guess I got a good'un..

Cheers

Liam

Do you want to buy mine then...

Only if you're selling it for a fiver. We already have two of them, and a 16-45mm, and an assortment of others too long to mention......

John: What think you of the 16-45? I've heard some pleasant comments about it. However, when I think of my 18-55 and go to a 16-45, I've already got the 45 covered and only gain from 18 to 16. (I don't know what the difference is from 18 to 16 in 35mm film lens equivalent).

However, the 16-45 may be a far better piece of glass?

Ted

The 18-55 is a very respectable lens, but it doesn't have the crispness that the 16-45 does, especially at wider apertures. I tested both lenses and some tiny lettering in my shots was perfectly readable with both lenses, but was very crisp with the 16-45 and quite softly rendered by the 18-55. This difference can be clearly seen on an A3 print, but not from a normal viewing distance say on a gallery wall.

The real adavantage is the 35mm-equivalent of 24mm as opposed to 28mm, which is a significantly wider angle. As I tend to like wide angles, this makes my choice very clear. If you like close-ups, the 18-55 focuses slightly closer.

For general shooting, the 18-55 and 50-200 combination makes a lot of sense.

The 18-55 (like other manufacturers similar lenses) has reasonable centre sharpness but nearer the edges resolution leaves a lot to be desired, especially wide open where it's really quite poor. As I tend to shoot landscapes with foreground detail I've found the 18-55 to be unusable for that purpose. For more general shooting it's ok, and for portraits it's capable of pretty sharp results especially when stopped down to F11. Of course mine might be a particularly bad example however having seen other peoples results with the 18-55 I doubt it.

Having said all that I have had a play with the Canon 18-55's that came with a couple of my colleagues 350D's and those really were woeful. They're quite happy with them however because they're still a massive step forward from the P&S's they had before.

It's the difference between 24mm and 28mm and therefore quite significant.

Ah well - at least mine makes a nice paperweight...

Since I got it, the 16-45 has rarely been off my camera.