Doug,

Terry may indeed have been having 'a bit of fun', but did it not occur to you before responding, how shall I put it, so forcefullythat I might have been doing the same? Indeed, in ending my post I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that I had made it clear that whilst what I wrote was intended to be provocative (notice the insertion of at the end of the second paragraph), it was not intended to cause offense, viz

Based on personal experience, we have both formed views as to the relative merits of the 18-55 and 16-45 that are equally valid: they just happen to be different. We seem to differ, however, in the extent to which we feel this limited experience allows us to make sweeping statements regarding the suitability, or otherwise, of either lens. This, I believe, is evident from my original post in this thread:

I will end by making clear that I have no wish to engage in a 'war of words' with you, or anyone else for that matter, on the forum; especially when the issue at stake is as trivial, in the overall scheme scheme of things, is the right to hold a personal preference for one lens over another.

I hope our next exchange proves less incendiary

Best wishes,

Jon

Can I take it, then, that neither of you have ever been able to justify the purchase of lenses additional to the standard kit lenses (18-55, 50-200 or 55-300 DAL)?

When one begins to argue that a lens is not worth buying unless the 'improvement gained' is in direct proportion to the cost multiple (i.e. for twice the price one should get twice the performance), one is at great risk of being hoisted by one's own petard

Sadly for us all, the reality is that the law of diminishing returns applies to lenses, indeed photographic equipment in general, as much as it does to any other consumer durable.

Best wishes and no offense intended,

Jon

Based on what I've read in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that I must have been terribly unlucky with my first copy of the 18-55mm (Samsung kit lens variant), but amazingly fortunate with my particular copy of the DA 16-45mm, which from first use was a noticeable improvement over that supplied with the camera (GX-10) save one: it's less compact. Using my DA 16-45mm with my K20D has done nothing to diminish my respect for this lens.

My original 18-55 was sold soon after I bought my GX-10 in 2008; ironically to a gentleman in Korea (the home of Samsung) for what seemed an amazingly good price (£55.00 + shipping, as I recall)

When the K7 was released I kept a watchful eye on 'fleabay' for any 18-55mm WRs that had come bundled with the body and wwere being sold, because, I presume, the buyer already had one or more lenses that covered the same range. Eventually, I was able to get one for a very good price to use as a 'sacrificial lens' when shooting outdoors under conditions that the 16-45mm was not designed to cope with. In this capacity, the 18-55mm WR has performed admirably, but, like the my first 18-55, it is still no match for my 16-45.

My experience has not resulted in my dismissing the 18-55 as a 'bad lens', which it most patently is not, but it has convinced me that the improvements offered by the 16-45 more than justify the extra outlay and will continue to do so for as long as they remain available and can be bought for around the £200.00 mark.

Jon

Thanks for your comments on the basis of which I will seek other opportunities to improve my technique, especially with regard to optimising shutter speed and panning to obtain sufficient 'prop blur' without sacrificing sharpness and detail. Will then focus (sorry:blushon the challenge of obtaining images that stand out from the crowd because they combine technical proficiency with interesting compositional elements. Following a recent lens acquisition (Sigma 100-300mm f4 APO DG EX and matching 1.4x TC) I now have the kit, so it only remains to discover if I have the talent

Best wishes,

Jon

Simon,

There can be only one possible explantion for the condition in which the TC has been sent: you are, in fact, a wealthy philanthropist working secretly and arduously on behalf of the less fortunate on the Pentax User Forum and are selling new items as used

I thought I was an equipment user and not abuser, but you put my efforts to shame

Many, many thanks,

Jon

TC sold to Nick subject to payment being received.

Jon

'As new' with caps, case, manual and original packaging. Not had much experience with its use as soon after its purchase I was fortunate to obtain Sigma 1.4x EX DG at a very good price for use with my Sigma long lenses. A shot taken using the Kenko with a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG (hardly an ideal combination) can be seen on the forum here:link

For piece of mind, I'm offering the TC with a 14-day, no-quibble guarantee (full refund less postage) provided that it is returned in the same condition (functional and cosmetic) as sent.

Selling for £50.00 including p&p in the E.U. For other destinations please ask.

Further details here: link

Thanks for looking,

Jon

After many years of buying quality filters (UV, Skylight or 'protection') (Hoya/Kenko Pro-1 series, Sigma EX DG series) for all of my lenses, and having become increasingly aware of the controversy that rages regarding their use, I decided to try the photographic equivalent of 'going commando'

Bit nerve wracking to begin with, I have to admit, but soon got used to it and as I always use a lens hood I didn't feel I was venturing out totally unprotected.

I can't pretend that any effect was immediately apparent or marked (possibly because I had been using very high quality filters to start with), but over time I began to notice that many of my captures had more 'bite' and deeper, richer colours. The magnitude of the effect was dependent on the lens used and the level and quality of ambient lighting, with the most noticeable improvement under most conditions being evident in images captured using my Sigma 70-300mm APO DG.

Having a scientific background, I was tempted to do some objective testing, but quickly realised that this would be incredibly tedious and wholly impractical, unless conducted under controlled lighting conditions that would bear little relation to those normally encountered in the field.

To summarise: in my experience not using an high quality lens filter has no determental effect and may, depending on the lens in use and lighting conditions, result in more or less noticeable improvements in image quality.

Henceforth I will no longer be purchasing 'standard' filters for my lenses. Those that I have already purchased will be kept and used only under conditions where there is real risk of front element contamination (e.g. sea spray and/or wind driven sand). I will however, continue to buy the best quality polarisers that I can afford.

Hope this helps you save time, money and angst

Best wishes,

Jon

Another lens, Mike You need to book an appointment with a consultant specialising in WILBA at the earliest opportunity

Jon

Wantom and Insatiable Lens Buying Addiction

These were taken under less than perfect conditions (low cloud grey skies) at RIAT, Fairford on July 18th and represent a first attempt at capturing aircrat in flight. All were taken using a K20D and Sigma 70-300mm APO DG using TAv mode and exposure compensation of +1. Switched to JPEG for the majority of shots so that I could get the most out of the continuous shooting mode (Lo).

As a first effort I'm not totally despondent, but would appreciate C&C and any suggestions as to how I might have manipulated the shots in PSE to relieve the tedium of the background.

Thanks,

Jon

1


2


3


4