Pentax 18/55mm v 16/45!

It may be a silly question but is there a great deal of difference in the quality of the shots,I've gone back to the kit lens as I cant afford a short lens at the moment and I was suprised at the outcome!,,,I am not very far up the learning curve but I achieved some excellent results. One shot in particular won me my first ever Photography competition!,,,photo of the week on a rather large photo blog,I was chuffed to bits...so could someone tell me why the 16/45 is the must have lens....thanks very much for taking the time to read this!..................Ken

Hello Ken and welcome congratulations on wiining a competition. Perhaps one day i will take the plunge and be judged on my efforts.

This is the best site for getting good advice friendly advice,

I have the 18 - 55 lens and find it does a great job on my DS

I have considered the 16 - 45 but thought when would I need the slightly wider angle?I also wondered if I would actualy notice the difference in quality. Others on this forum have said previously that comparing the results side by side it is very hard to tell the difference in the quality of images with the two lenses

I saved my money took the kit lens and added the 50 -200mm

Enjoy the camera

Dave

Quite simply, the 16-45mm DA lens is technically superior to the 'kit' 18-55mm lens. There is a very good reason why the 16-45mm lens is more expensive than the 18-55mm if bought as lenses rather than as part of a kit.

Both lenses benefit from aspherical (AL) elements but the 16-45mm also employs extra low dispersion (ED) glass in some of its elements. Also, the 18-55mm has 6 iris blades compared to 8 in the 16-45mm DA.

The 18-55mm 'kit' lens is very good, the 16-45mm is superb. That isn't to say that better lens = better images, that part is down to you.

I have both of these lenses. The 18-55 came with the K10D just before Christmas, and I obtained the 16-45 about a month ago because of the limitations of the kit lens. In good light and straightforward situations the kit lens will produce excellent pictures, as good as the 16-45. Difficulties arise however in low light, with the lens wide open at wide angle, when images can suffer in contrast and definition. I've also had problems with flare. The 16-45 in its construction is in a different league and is an excellent partner to the K10D. I've also found that the extra 2mm at wideangle is extremely useful, like comparing 24mm to 28mm in 35mm film. This lens is pinsharp throughout its range, and an excellent
performer wide open.

Alan

I agree with Alan.
I was quite surprised by the difference of the viewing angle between the two lenses.
Overall the 16-45 is an amazing piece of glass.