Test kit v 1.7 smc 50 mm
Posted 24/06/2008 - 18:22
Link
I never thought I'd say this, but I prefer #1 Kit Lens.
Colours seem richer.
Was everything else equal?
I have a kit lens coming with my refurb from SRS.
Kinda interested in it now!
Colours seem richer.
Was everything else equal?
I have a kit lens coming with my refurb from SRS.
Kinda interested in it now!
Mac from Montreal
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
Posted 24/06/2008 - 18:28
Link
I'd say the lower looks marginally sharper in the mortar. I found my 50mm F2 prime to be sharper than the kit lens and the 1.7 is meant to be better.
Depends a bit shooting RAW and what post processing has been applied.
Anyway who cares if you're pleased with both!
I find the Tamron 17-50 to look sharper than the kit lens but at the price it jolly well should be.
Mike
Depends a bit shooting RAW and what post processing has been applied.
Anyway who cares if you're pleased with both!
I find the Tamron 17-50 to look sharper than the kit lens but at the price it jolly well should be.
Mike
Posted 24/06/2008 - 18:34
Link
Having done similar tests I couldn't see much difference at f8 or f11, both wide open the zoom was softer in the corners but not much. However the 40mm DA Ltd blows them both away wide open. What aperture were you using with the 18-55?
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 24/06/2008 - 18:45
Link
mikew wrote:
I'd say the lower looks marginally sharper in the mortar. I found my 50mm F2 prime to be sharper than the kit lens and the 1.7 is meant to be better.
Depends a bit shooting RAW and what post processing has been applied.
Anyway who cares if you're pleased with both!
I find the Tamron 17-50 to look sharper than the kit lens but at the price it jolly well should be.
Mike
I'd say the lower looks marginally sharper in the mortar. I found my 50mm F2 prime to be sharper than the kit lens and the 1.7 is meant to be better.
Depends a bit shooting RAW and what post processing has been applied.
Anyway who cares if you're pleased with both!
I find the Tamron 17-50 to look sharper than the kit lens but at the price it jolly well should be.
Mike
Both shots were taken as near as possible at the same focal length and settings in raw format. I would imagine the worth of the 1.7 will be in low light situations.
Posted 24/06/2008 - 20:03
Link
Now repeat the test at f1.7. Ah, but of course, you can't open the kit lens that far.
Seriously, 2 shots does not a test make.
If you were to repeat your test at all apertures common to both lenses, I'm sure you'd see a difference at the extremes of aperture.
Then you'd apreciate the additional low light capabilities of the 50/1.7 I think.
Seriously, 2 shots does not a test make.
If you were to repeat your test at all apertures common to both lenses, I'm sure you'd see a difference at the extremes of aperture.
Then you'd apreciate the additional low light capabilities of the 50/1.7 I think.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 24/06/2008 - 22:37
Link
Yes I undrstand this does not provide a valid test but I have tried other scenes and the kit lens does a pretty good job. I have said the 1.7 will be useful in low light situations saving the use of a flash for one thing but I feel the kit lens isnt realy given the credit sometimes of how good it is.
Posted 12/08/2008 - 09:18
Link
Just bumped this thread to add has anyone got the upgraded kit lens and if so how does it compare with the old one. I would have thought it should produce better image quality.
Posted 12/08/2008 - 12:26
Link
Which 1.7 lens was it you were using ? M;A;F;orFA ?
I dont have experience of the F or FA, but if it was the M or A 1.7 and the 18-55 was performing the same or better I suggest your old lens is knackered.
I dont have experience of the F or FA, but if it was the M or A 1.7 and the 18-55 was performing the same or better I suggest your old lens is knackered.
Peter
My Flickr page
My Flickr page
Posted 13/08/2008 - 21:11
Link
Mannesty wrote:
The 18-55 MkII is supposed to have a higher resolution to match what is achievable with a K20D.
The 18-55 MkII is supposed to have a higher resolution to match what is achievable with a K20D.
So do you think Peter there is any point upgraiding the lens when I get my k10. Would I see any benifit or is the lens simply designed to work with the new sensor in the k20.
Posted 13/08/2008 - 22:18
Link
Personally I'd spend more to get more. The kit lens is not fast - I bought a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 throughout and find it works very well. There again everyone seems to suggest the Pentax 16-50 (or is it 45) which costs much the same is very good and possibly better than the Tamron but is f4.
Mike
Mike
Posted 13/08/2008 - 22:26
Link
philstaff wrote:
So do you think Peter there is any point upgraiding the lens when I get my k10. Would I see any benifit or is the lens simply designed to work with the new sensor in the k20.
Mannesty wrote:
The 18-55 MkII is supposed to have a higher resolution to match what is achievable with a K20D.
The 18-55 MkII is supposed to have a higher resolution to match what is achievable with a K20D.
So do you think Peter there is any point upgraiding the lens when I get my k10. Would I see any benifit or is the lens simply designed to work with the new sensor in the k20.
On a K10D, I doubt you'd notice much difference between the 2 versions of 18-55, but you'll upgrade your camera body one day. If you already have the non-MkII version, stick with it for now.
IMHO: Both the DA 16-45mm and DA*16-50mm lenses are far superior to both of the 18-55 lenses.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 13/08/2008 - 22:43
Link
On my K10D, I noticed an improvement in edge sharpness with my mark II versus my mark I 18-55. In my opinion, it is not far inferior to the 16-45.
The mk II would make a worthwhile upgrade for a K10D if you are at all less than happy with your mk I, yet don't want to use a larger and more expensive lens for most of your "general" photography.
The mk II would make a worthwhile upgrade for a K10D if you are at all less than happy with your mk I, yet don't want to use a larger and more expensive lens for most of your "general" photography.
~Pete
Posted 14/08/2008 - 14:10
Link
Thanks guys for the help and advice there are a couple of lenses I have in mind in the future but for now I will stay with my kit lens.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1455 posts
16 years
Took these two shots as a test today pic 1 with a kit lens 18/55 pic 2 1.7 smc 50mm. Dont see alot of differnce even blown full size.