DA 18-55mm WR
Posted 03/02/2010 - 14:19
Link
The optics are the same, maybe you have a bad copy?
ps. trying to sound very certain here
ps. trying to sound very certain here
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 03/02/2010 - 14:21
Link
Out of interest, is the WR the same as the II optically?
Also, is the DAL the same as the II?
Also, is the DAL the same as the II?
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 03/02/2010 - 14:29
Link
Bojidar Dimitrov site.
you can click for yourself, if I would link them all seperatly it will take my twice as long as for you just clicking.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/index.html
ps. Bojidar Dimitrov just use the same drawing of the elements for all of them, so he is convinced they are the same as well by the looks of it.
All pentax knows for 100% sure of course...
you can click for yourself, if I would link them all seperatly it will take my twice as long as for you just clicking.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/index.html
ps. Bojidar Dimitrov just use the same drawing of the elements for all of them, so he is convinced they are the same as well by the looks of it.
All pentax knows for 100% sure of course...
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 03/02/2010 - 14:56
Link
Is there any other info source that verfies that?
Bojidar is not immune from making mistakes. I noticed the weight was wrong for one lens. (I got no reply when I emailed him).
This is my second copy of the lens. I think it is unlikely that a third will be better. And I'm not going to waste any more money in return postage. I will either live with it (saving it for rainy weather only), or sell it.
Bojidar is not immune from making mistakes. I noticed the weight was wrong for one lens. (I got no reply when I emailed him).
This is my second copy of the lens. I think it is unlikely that a third will be better. And I'm not going to waste any more money in return postage. I will either live with it (saving it for rainy weather only), or sell it.
~Pete
Posted 03/02/2010 - 15:06
Link
robbie_d wrote:
Out of interest, is the WR the same as the II optically?
Also, is the DAL the same as the II?
All three of those are optically the same according to Bojidar Dimitrov, but I don't know if he is correct.Out of interest, is the WR the same as the II optically?
Also, is the DAL the same as the II?
The DA L version has a plastic mount, no Quick Shift and comes with no hood, but it's nice and sharp (for a zoom) so I recommend it. A compatible bayonet hood can be bought off eBay for a tenner.
The mk II version has been discontinued already.
~Pete
Posted 03/02/2010 - 15:22
Link
Well the WR do have an extra coating the SP one... might that have something to do with it?
Besides that there is hardly any info on the WR lens.
Besides that there is hardly any info on the WR lens.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 03/02/2010 - 15:31
Link
The mk II also has the SP coating, and that is a sharper lens in my experience. (I owned a copy of that, too).
~Pete
Posted 03/02/2010 - 15:47
Link
I was thinking of getting myself one of these lenses. I'm not too sure now, does anyone else have experience of this lens??
Posted 03/02/2010 - 15:52
Link
Looking at some more test shots, the WR 18-55 seems OK at 18mm, and not tooooo bad at 30mm. It's just at the long end where it's very poor. So I might treat this lens as a wide angle and switch to my 50-200 WR for 50mm.
~Pete
Posted 03/02/2010 - 16:00
Link
iceblinker wrote:
The DA L version has a plastic mount, no Quick Shift and comes with no hood, but it's nice and sharp (for a zoom) so I recommend it. A compatible bayonet hood can be bought off eBay for a tenner.
The mk II version has been discontinued already.
Wasn't so much in the market for one as curious.robbie_d wrote:
Out of interest, is the WR the same as the II optically?
Also, is the DAL the same as the II?
All three of those are optically the same according to Bojidar Dimitrov, but I don't know if he is correct.Out of interest, is the WR the same as the II optically?
Also, is the DAL the same as the II?
The DA L version has a plastic mount, no Quick Shift and comes with no hood, but it's nice and sharp (for a zoom) so I recommend it. A compatible bayonet hood can be bought off eBay for a tenner.
The mk II version has been discontinued already.
I have the original DA 18-55mm (mk 1 if you will), and recently sold a DAL. Kept the DA due to the hood, metal mount, quick shift, etc.
From what I read it's not quite as sharp as the II (and therefore the WR and DAL) but I don;t think I'd really notice anyway!
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 03/02/2010 - 16:06
Link
I had a mk I as well (I've owned a copy of every version!). That was OK, except not as sharp towards the edges at large apertures as the mk II or L versions.
~Pete
Posted 03/02/2010 - 16:08
Link
Very strange this, you would have though they would would keep or improve the optics not make it worst...
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
3062 posts
19 years
England Inside leg: 34
I'm on my second copy of this lens and am finding it distinctly softer than my DA L version (and the II version I had previously). It's been said that the optical formular is the same - I've even said that myself - but I'm not sure it's true now.
I'm blue in the face with AF adjusments, so I don't believe focus is to blame. The lens is simply a bit crappy.