What is the difference


1947lcs

Link Posted 19/06/2014 - 17:19
Now I am the proud owner of a K-5 I was thinking of updating my 18-55 AL kit lens to the weather resistant version.
Is there any optical difference in these two lenses or is it just the weather proofing that is the difference.

Thanks

Les
K5, DAL18-55,SMC 50mm f2,DA 55-300, SCM F 35-70 and all the help I can get.

SteveLedger

Link Posted 19/06/2014 - 21:06
I sold my older non-WR 18-55mm as it was rarely used and wasn't the best. I got the WR 18-55mm with my K-50 and while it should be optically the same, it does seem to be better. Perhaps the coatings are different.

richandfleur

Link Posted 19/06/2014 - 22:28
I can't say on the older versions, but I've got the WR type that came as the standard kit offering on the K-30 and honestly I find it exceptional. It really stands out when compared to 'kit lenses' from other brands. The WR is weather resistant obviously, but optically it's pretty darned good also.

McGregNi

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 02:19
The later WR version of the kit lens is well regarded and I enjoy using it and for most of my general family type of stuff it is great. I don't pretend though that it is up to scratch for more purposeful photography, and optically all my other lenses outperform it.

If you are looking to upgrade a kit lens I would recommend going a bit further and getting one of the more common upgrade options - something with a wider aperture, slightly wider range and higher IQ than any of the kit lenses. There are a couple of options from Pentax, Sigma & Tamron which others who use them will be able to recommend specifically.

Of course, if there is a small budget by all means you could just move to the WR version of what you have, but for me an upgrade is a chance to seize and really make more of a difference to your image quality.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 20/06/2014 - 02:19

gartmore

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 06:11
Perhaps there is some variance since I had the original version and could see no optical difference between it and the very highly regarded 16-45
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 -

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 07:05
I agree with Ken. I have owned the 16-45 and both early non-WR and the latest WR incarnation and when my kit was stolen I didn't bother replacing the 16-45 as for the type of photographs I take, using mainly moderate apertures in good light, the kit lenses suited me very well.

I also have a Tamron 17-50 which is very nice. I pretend it's my best standard zoom in order to justify to my self the high cost... But, in truth, you'd be hard put to tell the difference.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

andrewk

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 08:54
I haven't used a 16-45 but, from f/8 onwards, my MK2 18-55mm is as sharp as any prime I have (24mm,28mm,35mm,50mm). It starts to lose out at f/5.6, but only if you really pixel peep.

Andrew
Flickr photostream
Last Edited by andrewk on 20/06/2014 - 08:56

Russ

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 09:15
I regret selling my 18-55WR, it was a cracking lens at moderate (F8>) apertures. And the build and feel of the lens just looked and felt better than the non-WR versions. And it gave me a weather resistant lens when i needed it. Should of bought the one on the forum the other day.
I agree with others that once you move to those more moderate apertures you'll be hard pressed to the see the difference between it and the 16-45. Where the 16-45 excels is performing superbly regardless what aperture you select.

gartmore

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 09:22
and it also has the advantage of a constant aperture
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 -

Russ

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 09:34
And the 16-45 isn't really all that expensive these days.

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 09:52
Yes, the important caveat with inexpensive lenses is the need to use them at moderate apertures. The Tamron 17-50 really can be used wide open, I find.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

Russ

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 10:01
bwlchmawr wrote:
Yes, the important caveat with inexpensive lenses is the need to use them at moderate apertures. The Tamron 17-50 really can be used wide open, I find.

Knowing that helps us justify spending the extra

davidstorm

Link Posted 20/06/2014 - 22:50
The Sigma 17-70 is also excellent, I tested it against the Pentax DA 17-70 and found the Sigma to be sharper, except from 60-70mm where the Pentax was better. It is also good from F2.8 and has nice bokeh.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

jemx99

Link Posted 21/06/2014 - 19:47
Sometimes I look back at some of my shots and think crikey thats sharp and then I check to see which lens I used and sometimes it's the kit lens! I've had several copies and all have been very good - however none come anywhere near my 16-45 (which the daugter has borrowed for a few days and I miss already!)

1947lcs

Link Posted 23/06/2014 - 08:38
Thanks for all the advice.

Les
K5, DAL18-55,SMC 50mm f2,DA 55-300, SCM F 35-70 and all the help I can get.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.