Looking to buy an 18-55 mkII


tobyed

Link Posted 05/08/2008 - 12:22
I use my K10d for landscape shooting and get most use out of my mkI kit lens. As image resolution and sharpness is paramount to me, would I see a decent improvement with the mkII version? For the sake of 60 quid it must be worth buying? Right?! (SRS @ 60 - Is that the best price available?)

Would I be better off putting more money towards say the 16-45?

I appreciate that this has been discussed, and while I have searched and read some posts about it, I haven't found a definitive answer.

Toby
Portfolio

Tooks

Link Posted 05/08/2008 - 13:20
Well, the 16-45 is undoubtedly a far far better lens than the 18-55 MkII, so it comes down to whether price is an issue?

60 is the best price I've seen for the MkII.

I have the MkII also on a K10d, and although much of photography is subjective, I have noticed slight improvements in images over the MkI lens.

I have tried shooting the same image with the same settings and lighting with both lenses on the same K10d, but to be honest you see more difference in the histograms than anywhere else! The images with the MkII definately had more 'meat' to them in the centre of the histogram though, and looked a little more 'rich'.

Whether that means anything, or creates better images is as I say, subjective.

But, I'm happy with mine, and think overall it is an improvement.

If you can afford it though, the 16-45 is in a different league.
Last Edited by Tooks on 05/08/2008 - 13:20

Chris@SRSWATFORD

Link Posted 05/08/2008 - 16:47
Hi Toby,

I can supply a Mk2 to you or any other forum member for 49 delivered at the moment..

Chris
For all things Pentax please visit www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk - anything not listed please email or call!

Follow us on Facebook

iceblinker

Link Posted 05/08/2008 - 19:44
The 16-45 did not seem far better than the 18-55 II to me. In fact I could not decide which was best when I owned both. Any difference in true sharpness, for example, is dwarfed by the tiniest difference in focusing.

While I still think the 16-45 is a good quality lens that is nice to handle, there are more interesting or exciting options now if you are going to spend that kind of money. You could have one that provides more range or speed.

For minimising the cost, size and weight, though, the 18-55 II is a very good option.
~Pete
Last Edited by iceblinker on 05/08/2008 - 19:46

ChrisA

Link Posted 05/08/2008 - 19:51
Chris@SRSWATFORD wrote:
I can supply a Mk2 to you or any other forum member for 49 delivered at the moment..

In the UK, presumably
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.