I take your point. Looking at the EXIF data for each shot, whilst the light seemed very similar on each day, the light was actually 1 stop dimmer for the kit lens.

However, at least it did prompt me to question the differences and start this thread. After the various helpful comments it's made me review the kit lens performance overal and think more about using 'Av' instead of 'P' all the time !

'You are never too old to learn' and that's one beauty of this Forum !

Thanks again
Peter

Many thanks, again, Andrew. You have done a really thorough job and I do appreciate the time you've given to this one.

Can you confirm that the 'star' lens is the Pentax 'F' (as opposed to the 'FA') 35-70 ? The 'FA' ones come up frequently on ebay but I've not seen any of the 'F' series recently ? Looking at the US Pentax Forum the FA's don't get as good reviews ?

Meanwhile, have you checked my Weigela shot on the Gallery ? This was taken with the DAL 18-55 at 42.5mm and close to minimum focus distance as a pseudo macro shot. I think that is why there are a lot of 'out of focus' leaves and blooms but those that are focussed seem quite sharp to me ?

I've not had time to do the comparitive experiments myself yet but will post results when I have them.

Peter

Many thanks, Andrew, for this and the other comments.

I right-clicked on the main image and it showed EXIF data of f/14 ay 1/60s so no camera shake but a stopped down lens !

You got me thinking that my problems with my DAL 18-55 may stem from when it is used opened up (i.e. f/4 or 5.6) which might explain the better results in bright light when the camera in 'P' mode would probably have stopped it down.

I therefore did a quick check on some shots taken in bright light last May and have posted one on the Gallery today. Whilst many of the flower blooms are a bit soft this is a d.o.f. issue, since I took the shot near the minimum focus distance, and some areas are pin sharp. The EXIF data shows that the lens was stopped down to f/10.

I will try some shots at f/11 using Av instead of P and see what results I get ?

Peter

Many thanks for all your contributions - perhaps I do have a duff DAL 18-55 lens and don't have 'the shakes' after all !

This would seem to be backed up by the fact that whilst it gives reasonable results in bright light the exposure and colour rendering are also bad in poor light (which would NOT be down to camera shake).

There are bound to be variations in quality in any mass produced item - it is just sad that a 'Premium brand' like Pentax allows the bottom end to be so low !

Interestingly about a year ago I took a similar shot of The African Queen, to that posted on the Gallery today, using my other kit lens the DAL 50 -200 and THAT one WAS sharp !

So it looks like my 18-55 is going back in the box again (for emergency use only!)

Peter

When looking for a new camera one of the reasons I chose the Pentax K-r was the in-camera Shake Reduction. I thought this would be an advantage as it meant I could use less complicated lenses that would be lighter to carry around.

When I got the twin-lens kit I was disappointed with the apparent softness of images from the DAL 18-55. Whilst the performance in bright light was good it was not good in poorer light or in close-ups of flowers.

When I got my Sigma 28-70 epsilon AF I was delighted with the sharper images I got although people commented how heavy this lens seems (it is a solid metal-bodied lens as opposed to the lightweight plastic construction of the DAL 18-55). Because of the better results this then became my 'standard' lens.

Recently, wishing to carry a lighter camera/lens combination I fitted the DAL 18-55 and took some shots which included repeats of some previously taken with the Sigma lens and was again disappointed by the results (2 shots of Mapledurham Mill have been posted on the Gallery to demonstrate this).

However, (and this now leads me to the reason for the posting), on review I noticed that the shot with the Sigma had a shutter speed of 1/250 whereas the DAL was at 1/125. This made me wonder whether the apparent 'softness' of the DAL image was actually due to 'camera shake' despite the use of the K-r's SR 'ON' ?

Basic physics tells me that heavier objects have a lower natural frequency of vibration than lighter objects.

Could this result in a lighter lens being more susceptible to camera shake than a heavy lens.

And is the Pentax SR system better able to compensate for low frequency shake than higher frequencies ?

I should add that all my shots so far have been taken 'hand held' !

John Riley says he has not experienced any problems with the Pentax 18-55 lenses but were yours heavier DA or WR versions, John ?

Any thoughts ?

Peter

On the local radio news this evening I heard that Jessops HAVE gone into administration !

Peter

I do hope you have been luckier than me with the 18-55 lens !

Whilst mine is the DAL 18-55 kit lens (with my K-r) I understand that the optics should be the same in mine and the WR version (I'm sure John Riley will correct me if I'm wrong ?)

I have never been happy with the IQ from this lens - I find the images soft and dull. I didn't realise quite how poor it was until I got my Sigma 28-70 Epsilon AF (£15 off ebay !). This lens outperforms the DAL 18-55 in every aspect. Despite its age the AF and aperture control are both rapid and accurate enabling me to happily use it in 'point & shoot' mode !

Perhaps it is just a function of the 'tolerance bands' in mass production, and I just happen to have a 'top end' copy of the Sigma and a 'bottom end' copy of the DAL ? Whatever, Pentax have done themselves no favours in letting such a poor lens out to a customer !

Most of the earlier postings on this thread have recommended the Pentax 18-55 lens although there is one posting that confirms my experience. I wonder what the general concensus is ?

Peter

As an 'enthusiast' photographer (as opposed to a professional) I am dead against cloning.
I fully agree with Smeggypants on this one that the the scene should be remembered 'as it was' and 'warts n all' if that be the case.
Like wise I agree with him that a bit of 'touching up' is quite OK since we don't always get the exposure 'perfect'. Hence my recent attempts at enhancing the dull sky in my shot taken near Grasmere on a dull day.

As regards 'extraneous' inclusions I do my best to position my 'point of view' when composing a shot so as to minimise unwanted items but that is not always possible.
However, I am prepared to get wet feet as required for the shot of the Thames flood in today's gallery posting !

There is greater satisfaction from getting the Compostion right than from manipulating an image later !
But that is just my personal opinion !!!

Peter

Never fear, Tony ! Help is at hand !

1) if you go back to the Pentax Japan website, navigate to the Downloads page and then change the view to the JAPANESE language version. THEN hit the PBLU0440 link and scroll down to the download button on the left of the page as on the English page it will offer you (in English!) the option to download the correct file ! Daft, I know, but it worked for me (as they say)!

2) Nigel (see the posting before yours above) HAS produced a Guide to PDCU4 which can be found elsewhere on this site. The easiest way to locate it is probably to click on his name to get directed to his page and there you will see the list of his threads.

I started trying to use PDCU4 to work on my .dng files just over a month ago and after some help from Nigel I now find it much easier - give it a try.

Good luck
Peter

I have always saved my images as both jpg and dng files as I was not too sure what to do but knew that processing the RAW files would eventually give a better result.

If you are new to RAW processing (as I was) why not give the free PDCU4 which came with the camera a try (as I did) ?

There are NUMEROUS people on this forum who will insist that it is no good but just ignore the doubting Thomas's !

Have a read of Nigel's Guide, published elsewhere on this forum, and you may just be surprised, as I was, just how good it is once you get through the initial barrier ! What were dull jpegs now 'sparkle' !

THEN, if you are still not too sure, is the time to decide whether or not to spend out on something else ?

Don't listen to the mob - make up your own ideas !

Best wishes

Peter