Yes, this is the correct result. It is what we call "user error" or subjective variance.

Because, overall, the 18-55mm kit lens is demonstrably NOT sharper than an FA 50, or any other Pentax 50mm for that matter. Comparing MTF measures we find that the 50mm beats the kit at f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8 (er, naturally) and also at f/4. At f/5.6 and f/8 they are much the same, so long as we don't take the kit wider than 35mm. But in that case why use the zoom at all?

Some might find the differences to be negligible for their purposes. But I saw distinct improvements even in going from the kit to the DA 16-45. So I'm one of those people for whom lenses do matter. For me, shooting at f/8 to make differences between lenses negligible is to completely miss the point.

(Note: I am referring to the kit Mk I, since I have not used Mk II.)

Your powers of avian resurrection aside, I find the best recipe for cobwebs is: SPIDER + TIME.

Any lens sharp corner to corner should work. My perfect lens for this application would be the FA31 but I'd have no problem using my FA43 at f/4 to f/8.

They definitely do call the newer version a "II" lens, but it doesn't seem to be marked.

Ah yes, but (almost) all of the photo mags are rubbish.

The "SAMSUNG 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 D-Xenon Lens II" does not bear a distinguishing mark, but the "SMC PENTAX-DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL II" does. I have no idea how you tell the Samsung versions apart. Anyone have both side by side?

I agree, it's ridiculous. Full MTF and other specs should be made available on all lenses. The manufacturers have this info but do not release it. I think only Leica act professionally in this regard.

Algernon, I don't get it. What have you focused on in the first image? It looks like nothing is in focus, so yeah, it's pretty soft.

The kit zoom is good value, but I also would prefer a shot of the same subject with both so as to eliminate variables. Some lenses just get bad by f/16.

I wonder which is better at 55mm and f/4?

Street shots.