Kit Lens Replacement

Hi

Ive got a DL2 with 18-55 kit lens and would like to change it for a better one. I understand that the 16-45 is a good replacement but i don't really want to be spending that sort of money. Also looking for a macro lens. Any ideas are most welcome.

Thanks Richard

The best way to improve the quality of results from a lens is to use a good solid tripod. And that has always been true, but it's such a nuiscance to put into practice!

However, lately we have been very good and at least use a tripod for church interiors and macro shots. It's a start.

The 16-45mm is a better lens and at around £300 is IMHO very good value. The 18-55mm is also a good lens when stopped down, but not quite in the same league. It is still probably the best of all the various makes of 18-55mm that are available.

The 24-90mm is also an improvement, almost as good as the 16-45mm. If you can find one it might be a good choice.

Finally, how about eBay? You might find a mint used example at a more reasonable price.

There is no better replacement than the 16-45mm DA in the current Pentax lineup and there's nothing similar AFAIK in the old lens series either. You'll have to look at third party options like Sigma or Tamron. My recommendation is that you save your pennies and/or sell some gear you don't need and wait until you can afford the 16-45mm DA.

PM me if you, or anybody here, would be interested in buying a damaged, but fully functional, 16-45mm lens that I have. It has a couple of chips/scratches on the front element but my tests show that the damage does not limit the use of the lens much. Have a look at the second photo on ebay item 270022921844. Although the item is shown as sold, the buyer never paid up so I still have it, but it's in Spain and I'll not be able to send it to you until after 23rd November when I go back from UK. If you are interested I can put the sample images back on the web.

I Don't mind buying a third party lens if it's better than i've already got. I do use a tripod when needed

How much are you willing to spend? I tried a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 before I got my 16-45. Wasn't bad, seem to remember there was a bit more distortion at the wide end. You could get that for about £240. I decided that I'd rather pay the extra £40 and get the Pentax (from Park Cameras).

Below that price I don't think you'll get anything better than what you've already got, but I could be wrong.

Beware of zooms in this price range that claim to be 'macro', when they really mean 'focus a bit nearer than you might expect'.

Dan

I got a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for a trip to China.

It doesn't purport to be Macro but it focusses down to 28cm(?), I love the photos taken with it and the constant f/2.8 minimum aperature came in very handy on many an occasion.

People say it is "well built" and compared to other digital lenses it certainly is, but don't compare it with the old metal lovelies.

What am i to expect in quality in my photo's between the 18-55 and the 16-45 will the 16-45 bring out a better perfomance from my DL2.

The 18-55 is a competent lens that is slightly soft wide open but crisps up nicely when stopped down. We have two of them and both perform exavtly the same. Others have reported some variation, but that is to be expected.

When I got my 16-45mm I took a lot of comparison shots between the two lenses, and aperture for aperture the more expensive lens produces sharper shots. This is visible in A4 and larger prints if you know what to look for.

In isolation, without comapring, both lenses produce prints which look sharp.

In summary, I use the 16-45mm promarily for its slightly wider coverage but I'm pleased with the definite jump in quality.

If you don't need the full range, another option might be the 18-35. I haven't tried the 16-45 but it does compare well with the results from the 24-90.

Kim

The 24-90 is a superb lens, such that my Sigma 24-70 EX lies dormant....

Been looking at my photos from Hong Kong and the sharpness of the 24-90 is something to behold...

I recently picked up a Tamron Adaptall SP macro 90mm F2.5 from Ebay for £50 with the matching 2x converter. I'm very pleased with its performance, both as a macro and a mid tele lens. If you can get the KA mount for it then it becomes fully compatible with the Pentax DSLRs. Alas these are hard to get, but you can still use it as you would an M or K series lens with the KM mount (this is what I have).

But will a better lense improve the performance of my DL2 in the same range in quality as say the K10D

A better lens will improve the quality of your pictures on the DL2 and this may equate to a cheaper lens on the K10D. However, a K10D is also likely to make even more use of the properties of that same better lens.

Kim

for example I have a Zeiss Flektogon 35mm F2.4

It is an amazing standard lens on a crop sensor DSLR, and is probably my favourite lens overall.

This lens is so sharp wide open that on my *istDL2 I cannot distinguish a difference in sharpness between F2.4 and F8

I suspect (though I have not yet had the chance to prove) that this would not be the case on the 10MP K10D, or at least that this stunning lens would be revealed as even sharper than it already appears. I think I might have to put some sort of a warning on it if so, people might cut themselves.

So is it fair to say then that i don't need to upgrade my DL2 just get a better lens.