Help me choose

I currently have three of the four

DA16-45 - astonishingly good value. Superb for landscapes. Very light weight. Not so keen on the bokeh though.

DA17-70 - lovely lens. Excellent range. Super sharp and contrasty. Fairly heavy, and SDM only (only a problem with older dSLRs). Creamy bokeh. Out-of-camera JPGs very usable.

DA*16-50 - My favourite of the three. Heaviest, but WR. Ultra, ultra quiet focus and an utter joy to use. From initial tests I'd use this on RAW and use the correction of LR3. Excellent match to the DA*50-135.


It's a tough one between the three
Big downside of the DA*16-50 is price

If you want any more specific comments, just let me know
Matt

Just to pick up on the primes issue, modern primes will be better than zooms in most cases, but the ones referred to by Algi are designed for film and not really up to the rigors of the DSLR.

Some older lenses can be good, but many are not.

I choose none of them as I do not have first hand experience but wanted to see the results of the poll...

K.

This is a 100% crop of the top right hand corner of a comparison
between the 18-55mm Mk2 Kit Lens and a very good prime lens,
which I won't name because I don't want to embarrass it.
35mm Focal length. Pentax K-5 200ISO Tripod 2 sec delay.
The Kit Lens was just slightly better in the centre as well.
Edit: The Kit Lens is on the RIGHT


The shot shows quite clearly that there is nothing wrong with
the corners of the18-55mm Mk2 Kit Lens at 35mm. It's equally
as good at 24mm.



-

I think naming the lens would be useful Algi, otherwise we don't know what we're comparing against.

The difference in those cropped images is very obvious.

Algi, you have thrown me- I already knew that I preferred the flexibilty of zooms as a general rule but had accepted that they are a compromise in IQ compared with a prime.

I am really keen to do some tests on my lenses now.

You could also consider the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 which hasn't been mentioned yet and is, from independent tests, probably the sharpest of the lot. You'll need to Google some reviews though to find out about the corners.

IMO you need to check results at both ends of the zoom rather than the centre as many lenses perform well in the centre of their range but not so well at the extremes - and most people use their lenses at the extremes not the middle of the range !

I always found the corners of the kit lens a bit of an issue at 18mm although - 35mm is it's 'sweet spot'. It is very good for general photography but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an 'excellent' lens as some people insist it is. A more realistic description is 'good enough for most purposes if stopped down a bit'.

I have the Tamron 17-50mm which is a sharpness demon, but I kind of miss my 16-45mm: I loved the focal length and images seemed to have a certain richness and clarity despite being marginally less sharp under close examination. Hated the zoom extension on it though!

I picked up a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 HSM/OS for £275.00 from Park Cameras, heavy but a great bit of glass especially on the K-5. I use that most of the time for everyday shots such as landscapes and portraits. I use the K-5 SR and switch the lens OS off and I get consistently great results, just head over to Flickr and check my feed for some examples.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbladon/

I think if you are on a budget and want a seriously good upgrade to the kit lenses then bang for buck it's a great lens.

It would be unfair to name it, because it's actually a very
good lens, but obviously the corners aren't as good as the
Kit Lens. It is actually better than all the 24mm and 28mm's
I compared the Kit Lens with.

I've just checked the same shot 43mm Ltd against the Kit Lens
and the 43mm just pips it, but only just

I'll post the screen grab later from another PC.

You must have a stellar sample of the kit lens Algi.

I think all the Kit lenses are about the same. I have seen bad results from the Mk 1, but the Mk 1 I had that came with a *ist DS was excellent. When I bought a K10D the Mk.1 with it wasn't as good and I bought a Mk2 off SRS via ebay for £40 and it was identical in performance to my original Mk. 1. So having sold the two cameras I now have just the MK2, but I had trouble deciding which was the best the original or the Mk2.

The MkII and WR kit lenses are the better lenses, having resolution to match the larger sensors.

No idea how they all fare on a K10D, but on the K20D and later the difference is there.

Test done in very dull weather... rained 2 mins later.
The 43mm at f/8 is on the Left
The 18-55mm Mk2 Kit Lens is on the Right

Both 43mm focal length f/8 at 1/100th 200ISO K-5

The 43mm is just slightly better as would be expected, but
no sign of any soft corners on the Kit Lens. Now from
all tests 24mm to 43mm

Both lenses are excellent considering that this is right in the
corner of the frame. The centres are of course better than this
with the 43mm being a slightly noticeable best.



-

I can see a difference but it is far less obvious.

Can this be right? My humble kit lense can nearly match a ltd lens for sharpness across the frame?

Admittedly the zoom is used more at the extremes of the focal length more often than in the middle but I have to say I am pretty staggered.

Presumably the prime will perform much better than the zoom wide open (and it is considerably faster to boot.

I await a stern defence of the ltd- so many on here own these lenses and I hanker after one myself.