Old vs New

Amazing - are you sure? The optically identical 18-55 ALII is a great lens - but it definitely is not as sharp as a XR Rikenon 50mm f1.7 (that I bought on Fleabay for less than a tenner) at f5.6. At f8 and beyond it's close, but both will be diffraction limited anyway.

Andrew

I'm sure it might be true that the kit lens can rival or better some of the old primes for sharpness. However, if you look at other measures such as rendering, bokeh, etc you may find that the tables turn in favour of the primes.

Sharpness is one of the qualities that we need from a decent lens. But the overall look from a decent prime is different that that from a kit zoom - especially in the defocused areas. Which one you prefer might be a matter of personal taste, but I know which images jump out at me when I look at mine.

That Rikenon lens is known to be very sharp.

G

It may be the printing on the new lens, but it looks as though there's a touch of camera-shake on that shot with the 55mm. It could be that there is a little 'ghosting' of the numbers in real life.

Dan

It would be surprising if the printing on the modern lens suffered from ghosting, it looks like camera shake to me too. Plus the image on the left appears to be at a higher magnification? (or is the modern lens simply a much larger diameter than the Tak?)

I'd like to repeat the test at f5.6 or f8 with the kit lens and a 50mm f1.7! Perhaps you lucked out with your sample, mine was fairly soft especially on one side. Vignetting was another issue.

No camera shake I think, 2 second self timer and very solid tripod. Not the only shot either.

Just a poor sample of the lens IMHO.

I have not done any specific tests, but I have noticed that the pictures I have taken with the kit lens seem to generally be sharper than the ones taken with the 50mm. I will try and do a proper comparison this weekend. There is of course always the possibility that I don't have a particularly good example of this lens.

Of course, the one advantage the 50mm has (apart from low light) is for taking pictures with shallow depth of field at wider apertures which the kit lens can't reach. Overall, though, I have been a bit disappointed with it, especially wide open.

Probably a daft question but here goes anyway how do you tell the difference between mk1 and mk2 of the lens.
Ian

I think I have read somewhere that Samsung did not take up the MKII version, so maybe yours is based on the Pentax MKI. The Pentax versions are Marked 18-55II around the barrel

Thanks Barrie Im tempted now to give SRS a call and place an order for the new wr version for the Sammy its a very good price.
Ian

The Mk I has not got a I on it - the II has

Tony

Fairly rare, but Samsung did release a Mk II

Just checked mine and nothing on the lens to say its the MK 2.

In AP's "Great Lens Supplement " of 1996 they tested a Ricoh 50mm f/1.7 'P' and it was very poor scoring 20/30 for Optical Quality. Only managed 110 lpmm at f/8.

The lens right next to it on the page was the Pentax 80-200 f/2.8 which scored 28/30 and reached 130 lpmm at f/5.6..... Tough Contest.... NOT!

I've got the Ricoh f/1.4, f/1.7 and f/2.0 I've never really used them because I've never photographed anything where I want to add a lot of PURPLE in camera I did try leaving the f/1.4 in the sun earlier this year to kill of the yellow but it's still as bad.

I'll have to test these shortly, they might be better than I think, although looking through these AP books I don't think Ricoh ever made a good lens. They made zooms that only manage 95 lpmm when other makes were going up to 120-130 lpmm.

I'm sure Andrew has a good copy of an earlier lens, but lets not start rumours that Ricoh made good lenses, they didn't (they were all subcontracted anyway).