Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Old vs New

rparmar
Posted 08/07/2010 - 14:55 Link
philstaff wrote:
Just checked mine and nothing on the lens to say its the MK 2.

The "SAMSUNG 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 D-Xenon Lens II" does not bear a distinguishing mark, but the "SMC PENTAX-DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL II" does. I have no idea how you tell the Samsung versions apart. Anyone have both side by side?
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
philstaff
Posted 08/07/2010 - 15:12 Link
rparmar wrote:
philstaff wrote:
Just checked mine and nothing on the lens to say its the MK 2.

The "SAMSUNG 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 D-Xenon Lens II" does not bear a distinguishing mark, but the "SMC PENTAX-DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL II" does. I have no idea how you tell the Samsung versions apart. Anyone have both side by side?

I have sent Samsung a mail asking if they upgraded there lens as Pentax did with the K20 will let you know.
Ian
aliengrove
Posted 08/07/2010 - 15:33 Link
I've just done a comparison of my Pentax-A smc 50mm 1.4 versus the 18-55 WR kit lens, the results are quite interesting. 100% crops, no sharpening applied on any of the pics, they are jpegs straight out of the camera.

At f5.6, 50mm on the left side, 18-55 on the right


Comment Image


At f8, once again the 50mm on the left, 18-55 on the right.


Not a lot to choose between them?

Comment Image


Whoops, forgot to mention, the kit lens was set at 50mm for these shots, and Bridge showed focal lenth as 50mm.
Edited by aliengrove: 08/07/2010 - 15:44
andrewk
Posted 08/07/2010 - 15:36 Link
Algernon wrote:
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).

There are one or two test photos taken by Rikenon 50s (by me and others) on other threads in the forum - so folks could form their own opinion if they choose to do so. Some even compare them to the 18-55 ALII.

FWIW, I love the Pentax 18-55mm ALII - but it ultimately isn't as sharp as several old primes I have (at 24mm, 28mm and 50mm). It is way more convenient to use, though, and it's only if you use a solid tripod, cable release, lock the mirror up and take lots of tests shots - and then pixel peep that you can reliably discern a difference on screen. I doubt that I'd notice much/any difference on prints.

Andrew
rparmar
Posted 08/07/2010 - 16:20 Link
philstaff wrote:
I have sent Samsung a mail asking if they upgraded there lens as Pentax did with the K20 will let you know.

They definitely do call the newer version a "II" lens, but it doesn't seem to be marked.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Algernon
Posted 08/07/2010 - 17:26 Link
I think it was Park Cameras who had the II in stock with a photo and it did show II just like the Pentax one. It was quite expensive and it didn't look like Park were supplying the Mk II with the body at the time, they seemed to be supplying the Mk I.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Algernon
Posted 08/07/2010 - 17:43 Link
andrewk wrote:
Algernon wrote:
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).

There are one or two test photos taken by Rikenon 50s (by me and others) on other threads in the forum - so folks could form their own opinion if they choose to do so. Some even compare them to the 18-55 ALII.

FWIW, I love the Pentax 18-55mm ALII - but it ultimately isn't as sharp as several old primes I have (at 24mm, 28mm and 50mm). It is way more convenient to use, though, and it's only if you use a solid tripod, cable release, lock the mirror up and take lots of tests shots - and then pixel peep that you can reliably discern a difference on screen. I doubt that I'd notice much/any difference on prints.

Andrew

It's possible that some versions of the lens were better than others. There's also a rumor that Pentax made some of the early Ricoh f/1.7's. They certainly wouldn't have made the P version with the dreaded pin

I'm surprised that your Mk II lens isn't as good as the primes you list. Possibly your Kit Lens isn't as good as other examples, such as the one on this page. The 50mm Pentax-A f/1.4 is probably in the top 2 or 3 50mm's made by Pentax.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
andrewk
Posted 08/07/2010 - 18:33 Link
Algernon wrote:
I'm surprised that your Mk II lens isn't as good as the primes you list. Possibly your Kit Lens isn't as good as other examples, such as the one on this page. The 50mm Pentax-A f/1.4 is probably in the top 2 or 3 50mm's made by Pentax.

Perhaps I should mention that the 24mm I compared the kit lens with is the Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super-Wide II which is reputed to be one of the sharpest primes around. I've also taken some very sharp photos with the kit lens and have a high regard for it. I have no reason whatever to conclude that it is anything other than a fine example of its type.

Andrew
andrewk
Posted 08/07/2010 - 19:02 Link
George Lazarette wrote:
That Rikenon lens is known to be very sharp.G

It looks sharp enough to me: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/ricoh-xr-rikenon-50mm-f2-17328/p-1

Andrew
Algernon
Posted 08/07/2010 - 19:18 Link
I've just compared my three Ricoh's against the Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 at f/5.6 only, because of the time taken. I used 100ISO and one flashgun on a tripod at 45deg to a £10 held onto a box with blu-tak. The camera was on a tripod 1.25m target to sensor plane.

The camera (K20D)was fired by a wireless remote (RF-602) and another RF-602 fired the flashgun.

Each shot repeated at least twice with AF and MF (not usually any focus problems at f/5.6)saved only as full size Jpeg.

The camera histogram looked right in all cases. The three Ricoh lenses are slightly light and the Pentax lens slightly dark. Some PP work would be needed on the Ricoh shots, but I haven't done any.

None of the Ricoh lenses are P type.

There's very little difference between them. I had to enlarge the viewer to 200%. The Pentax probably just pips it and the f/2 Ricoh is just the looser.

Edit: If you look at the green on yellow lines under £10 the f/1.4 looks the worse not the f/2

I wish I'd used my Eye-Fi card to get the exposures better.

So these Ricohs are quite good. No advantage over the Pentax though and may need some PP to get the best out of them.

They have two big disadvantages 1): No half-stops 2): Not 'A' lenses.

This is a screen grab at 200%

Ricoh 1.4 ---- Pentax A 1.7
Ricoh 1.7 ---- Ricoh 2.0

Comment Image
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Edited by Algernon: 08/07/2010 - 19:22
Algernon
Posted 08/07/2010 - 19:25 Link
andrewk wrote:

It looks sharp enough to me: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/ricoh-xr-rikenon-50mm-f2-17328/p-1

Andrew

See what I mean about a purple cast Andrew on the second shot the posts and the road are purple
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Pentaxophile
Posted 08/07/2010 - 20:18 Link
I no longer own the kit lens, however I dug these out, where I was testing a Tokina 17mm f3.5 against the kit lens at its widest setting, at f8.

The kit lens is on the right. Top crops = extreme left corner. Bottom crops = centre.

Comment Image
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
JonSchick
Posted 08/07/2010 - 21:59 Link
After reading this lot earlier, I thought I'd have a play tonight and compare my 18-55 WR with various older primes. I might try and do more over the weekend but from a first go through (using tripod, remote release and SR off), my initial impressions are:

Compared to SMCM 20mm f4

At f4, the kit is sharper in the centre but the SMCM is better around the borders, and the SMCM has less purple fringing
At f5.6 the SMCM is sharper everywhere and has less fringing, but the kit lens is fine
At f8 that old prime is stunning!

Conclusion - although it is pretty decent, the widest angles are not the strongest card in the kit lens' hand - so if you take lots of pictures at the wide end, espeically wide open, you may want to investigate other options

Compared to Tamron 24mm f2.5

At f4 the kit lens is sharper around the borders (and much better than the results at 20mm) but has more purple fringing. Sharpness in the centre is very similar for both lenses
At f5.6 and f8 the Tamron is sharper in the centre and has less fringing, but there is a notable drop off in performance around the borders - the kit lens is more consistent

Conclusion - very close and the Tamron does not provide a very convincing reason to "upgrade" from the kit lens.

Compared to SMCM 35 f2.8

As for the other lenses, the prime has less purple fringing than the kit
At f4, performance between the two lenses is almost indistinguishable
At f5.6, the SMCM is sharper in the centre
At f8, the prime is superb, but the kit is also very good

Conclusion - the 35mm SMCM is a bit of a sleeper amongst older Pentax lenses but actually performs very well indeed. A nice "standard prime" and goes to f2.8 if you need it - worth adding to the kit bag as a cheap option to the 35mm FA - nicely made standard lens if you can find one at the right price. However, the kit lens is more than holding its own at this kind of focal length.

Compared to SMCA 50 f1.4

At f5.6 the prime is a little better than the kit, but you'd have to look quite hard to notice much difference by f8. And the kit seems to perform better at longer focal lengths in any case, with its weaker spots being at wide angle.

Conclusion - don't buy a 50mm prime if you rarely venture to faster apertures than f8. The reason to buy one is to have fun at the apertures that don't feature on the kit!

Final conclusions - the kit lens performs very nicely. The main issues with mine are purple fringing (and stopping down does not seem to get rid of it) and less than convincing picture quality at the widest angles, especially around the borders at wide apertures. Given that most wide angle shots are likely to be shot at smaller apertures in any case, this is hardly a major downside.

Based upon this messing around today, I would see the arguments in favour of more expensive or prime lenses being more about faster apertures than anything else. If you don't need f2.8 or faster on a regular basis, the kit lens will do very well indeed.
Jon

Some occasional random stuff at The Photographers Block: link
philstaff
Posted 08/07/2010 - 23:03 Link
rparmar wrote:
philstaff wrote:
I have sent Samsung a mail asking if they upgraded there lens as Pentax did with the K20 will let you know.

They definitely do call the newer version a "II" lens, but it doesn't seem to be marked.

So I persume from this that the GX 20 would have come with the new upgraded lens ?.
andrewk
Posted 08/07/2010 - 23:49 Link
Algernon wrote:
See what I mean about a purple cast Andrew on the second shot the posts and the road are purple

Errrr ......... no. Is your monitor calibrated (mine is)? The posts and the road look a little bluish to me, but then again they would have a slight blue cast as they are lit by the sky not the sun. Inept post processing might also play a part here, as the image they are cropped from (i.e. the first one) looks fine to me.

As an aside, the second and third images are not "shots". They are 100% crops from the first.

Andrew
Edited by andrewk: 08/07/2010 - 23:59

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.