Which lense??

It is entirely possible that a lens could have "portrait softness" as due to the rectangular shape of the sensor and film format the extreme edges at the sides are using more extreme edges of the image circle.

Having said that however I haven't noticed any problem with my 16-45 and certainly find it was a cost effective improvement on the kit lens. The constant F4 aperture the extra wideness and better resolution don't leave me disappointed.

I can't see how this can be so? Regardless of whether you take the photo with the camera horizontal or vertical (or any point inbetween) the same part of the lens covers exactly the same part of the sensor and will deliver exactly the same performance. Any variation may be (as Don says) down to the software used to view the results, but not the hardware surely?

Sorry to say, but this is the least convincing argument I've ever heard and another good reason in my book to avoid the BS on DPR...

The vast majority of owners of both lenses consider that the 16-45 is better, and it is worth recalling that John Riley has owned at least one sample of most K lenses ever made. His view counts.

So I think it is more likely that BB has a bad sample than that everybody else is wrong.

As for the people at DPReview, it's not true that they don't like Pentax equipment. They use these all the time to do what they are best at:

http://www.endoscope.com/End_Detail.asp?ProductID=3073&type=&Catagory=&a...

G

Can you get that in a K-mount?

Dunno. Never really thought about taking photographs in this area. But each to his own....

G

More to the point, can you get an adaptor for an AF 140C ringflash?

Dan

Daniel, really! Now you're touching bottom.

G

I think I just heard Frankie Howard turning in his grave...

Badbrother, the tests done by www.photozone.de contradicts your (and DPReview's) findings on the 16-45. They clearly show it to be superior to the 18-55 (mark I).

I suspect that DPreview had a bad copy as they had to stop theirs down to F11 at 16mm before it was sharp.

Cheeky!!

I confesse you are right.

G

i have to come back and say thanks to Don for tipping me on "wobble".

and yes, my lens does wobble a bit and i try another set of test in poking the the tip of the lens in different directions and was excited to find one shot which exhibits edge-to-edge sharpness and showing superior result to the kit lens.

I am sending it for servicing and hopefully come back a star performer (keeping my finger cross since the Pentax dealer here is not known to be good in fixing problems).

Try drawing it on a piece of paper. The image circle projected by a lens is always round as the lens is round (sometimes there are internal baffles to make a square aperture on say the M 100mm F4 but lets ignore this).

Now draw a rectangle in the box, not a square, make sure that the corners touch the edge of the circle. Draw it like it was your camera with a long top and short sides. If you've drawn it in the proportions 3 * 2 for instance you will see that the sides are much closer to the edge than the top and bottom. The top and bottom are not using the extreme edges of the image circle whereas the sides are. The performance of a lens is always better in the center than the corners. As you get further from the middle the quality decreases.

I concur, however, the argument was that the edge-to-edge sharpness was different depending upon which orientation the camera was held in - *that's* the bit that I contest as nothing changes in the relationship between lens and sensor regardless of the position you take a photo in. Except in this case it looks like it does, as the particular lens in question has a wobbly barrel which seems to be moving from shot to shot - the extra sharpness in landscape mode seems to be down to pot luck as it looks like that was when the lens elements "fell into place" (quite literally!). Under normal circumstances (ie without a broken lens) I still maintain my original point holds true...