Old vs New

Here's an interesting result. Two shots, both at f16 and 55mm, on the left the result shot with the SMC Takumar 55mm f2 and on the right the result shot with the SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 WR, taking pictures of each other.
[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/johnriley1uk/025-Lens-Check.jpg[/IMG]

The colour balance is off on both. Too much red and green.

The shot on the left might be slightly OOF or it's a poor lens at f/16.

The lighting is slightly better on the shot on the right and being a good kit lens it's also sharp and would beat all the old prime lenses put together

Algi

The lighting is actually identical, so any difference you see may be due to the surface reflectivity of the different finishes.

The point is that the new lens is a sharper optic, certainly at f16 and close distances.

The kit zoom is much better than many people realise.

It just shows how sharp the 18-55 kit lens can be .

IMHO it is only beaten by the Pentax-A 1.7/50 family (including the 1.2 and 1.4 of course, though I think the 1.7 has the best resolution).

Yes, I was expecting better. Despite not being excatly the same subject, I think it showed something interesting. Of course we need more samples of both lenses to draw any firm conclusions.

Except for macro lenses the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 is the sharpest lens I've ever had (the M is also very close). I sold my 50mm FA f/1.4 just not in the same league. I've kept an A f/1.4 because it's almost as good as the f/1.7

I also sold a 24mm f2/8 A series it was identical in performance with the two Kit Lenses I compared it against Mk 1 and Mk 2, but I also had a poor Mk 1 as well.

The 28mm M and A f/2.8's get beaten by just about everything including some Vivitars and the M can have a bad purple cast at times. Probably built down to a cost in what used to be the most competitive focal length apart from 135mm.

The 40mm f/2.8 I've had good and bad, very sharp in the centre OK at the edge at f/8. I haven't got one at present, but looking at some old shots I'm sorry I didn't try out the bokeh at f/2.8 properly it looks like it could be a bit of a Bokeh King

The M 100mm f/2.8 can be very good, I've had a bad one and a good one, but the 100mm macro is better at f/5.6 and below.

The 135mm f/3.5 M is good but the Russian Jupiters 11A and 37A are a full class higher.

Algi

Edit: The 50mm f/1.7 F is also very good.

I think the kit lens is cracking value for the money.
Ian

i have found the 18-55 WR kit lens is sharper than my Pentax-A smc 50mm 1.4 at all apertures save the ones the kit lens cant reach of course. now I only use the prime in low light.

Is there any difference in the iq of the wr as against the older 18/55.
Ian

I've had two originals one was better than the other.

One came with a *istDS and one with a K10D The *istDS one was the better one.

I bought a Mk II and couldn't tell any difference between that and the best of the Mk 1's

The WR is supposed to be identical to the Mk II

There are actually two families of older 18-55. The original one (from the K10D and older) has lower resolution than the current lens. The kit lens from the K20D (18-55 AL II) and newer are all optically identical to the WR version.

Spot on:

(1) WR and mark II have same optical formula
(2) there is some sample variation and you can be lucky or unlucky within reasonable limits
(3) you'd need one of the 14MP bodies to notice the difference in resolution between the older and newer lenses. With a K10D, the mark I and mark II would be hard to tell apart
(4) and back to John's original post, the lowly kit lens is indeed highly capable. The WR version is also very nicely put together, and is very pleasant to use.

Jon

I have the kit lens that came with nthe GX 20 SO I persume this is a mk2 in Samsung.I have not realy tried the lens a deal as I put the Sigma 17/70 on from new may be I should give it a work out thanks guys.
Ian

The kit zoom is good value, but I also would prefer a shot of the same subject with both so as to eliminate variables. Some lenses just get bad by f/16.

I wonder which is better at 55mm and f/4?

Indeed, if you can set the zoom lens at 55mm and f4 you are a remarkable photographer....

Actually I used a small aperture for the test because I use the kit lens at f11 or f16 for eBay photos of often fairly small objects. It's an excellent lens for this purpose, clearly better than my 55mm.