best replacement for 18-55 kit lens?

[knowlesy]

all suggestions welcome

[robert_nancarrow]

It is such a good lens that I don't believe it should be replaced per-se. I think it should be complemented with some large aperture primes such as the 35mm f/2 or 43mm limited. Or you could work on extending the focal length in either direction with the excellent 12-24 or the wonderful 50-200. Replacing the 18-55 would simply be getting a similar zoom with close image quality and a slightly larger aperture, the Sigma 17-70 comes to mind and it is a better lens but not a big enough difference that you would still not lust after the better primes soon. Just my opinion. Bob.

[nickwhite]

Why do you want/need to replace it?

 

If it is just for low light capability you could consider the Sigma 30mm F1.4 (but keep hold of the 18-55 for versatility).

[steve graham]

If you think the 18-55 is a good lens and the 50-200 "wonderful" then any of the other lenses mentioned are going to amaze you...

 

The 35mm F2 and 43mm ltd are very good lenses but expensive and not particularily useful focal lengths IMHO.

 

The most obvious replacement for the 18-55 is the DA 16-45mm F4. It's extra width is very useful and it's much better optically, especially in the edges and corners.

 

If I had the just the kit lens then my order of purchase would be:

 

1) Pentax DA 16-45 F4 - wider and sharper

2) Sigma 10-20mm - adds width, wider & cheaper than the Pentax 12-24 and at least as sharp

3) Sigma 70-300 APO DG - longer than the Pentax 50-200, better optically where their ranges overlap plus a useful 1:2 macro capability.

[denys_meunier]

The 18-55 is a very good and sharp lens ,of course the 16-45 is a little bit better.Now,wich one are more crisp and sharp,I don`t think so you can see a large difference.I suggest to take the difference money and buy the 70mm (ex)or a 55-200.

[celasun]

You should also consider Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 as a walk around lens. It has more reach, faster and is of better optical quality.

If you already have the kit lens, I do not think you really need a replacement; the kit lens bundled to the body has the highest price/performance ratio. If, on the other hand you are thinking about buying the body only, Sigma is a better alternative.

Pentax's new offering, the DA* 16-50mm, is more expensive and it seems to have a lukewarm reception by the community due to -I think- QC issues.

[michael_kuhne]

The good thing about the kit lens is that it's very compact, and with quite good quality. The last word in sharpness is not always an issue for many uses, and not worth carrying the extra weight.

 

I agree with what has been said about primes, except that the 43mm Limited has proved to be more versatile than I had thought until I got one and used it. It is useful as a short tele on a DSLR, good for group shots as well as portrait and scenery. On a film body, it's a versatile semi wide, and it is very compact and sharp. The 50mm converts to a medium tele on a DSLR and more specialized as a portrait type length, fitting in less with its view.

 

You might want to try a superior super wide-angle zoom lens first, opening up new doors in that direction, such as the fine Pentax 12-24mm. Since it overlaps the 18-55mm some, you will have a chance to see what the extra quality of a top zoom lens can do by comparison. Overlapping is good too, because you don't need to change lenses as often. If the cost difference is a major factor, the somewhat wider-angle and slower-aperture Sigma 10-20mm is a good choice. 10mm is as wide as it gets without going into a fisheye.

 

The Sigma 70-300mm mentioned is better if you don't mind the extra size and weight. At the actual 190mm equivelent of the Pentax lens, it would provide about twice the shutter speed at wide open aperture.

[stephen_van_egmond1]

Unless you dropped your kit lens, don't bother replacing it. It's remarkably good.

 

My lens buying addiction led me to get a Sigma 17-70. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine lens, and certainly feels nicer than the kit lens, but it's not $350 nicer.

 

Instead, head on down to your local sketchy pawn shop and see if they have any manual primes and have yourself a ball.

 

Otherwise, +1 to the suggestions to pick up a wide or long zoom depending on your interests. I picked up a DA14 as my second lens and it's been fantastic.

[steve graham]

To people really find the kit lens "remarkably good"? If so what other lenses have you actually used? I was so dissapointed with both samples I've had that I did tests against various other lenses and found that while centre sharpness was quite decent the corner performance was very poor - significantly worse even than a cheap Pheonix 19-35mm that I already had. The 18-55 might seem pretty good if you're always shooting with the main subject in the centre of the frame, or if you're used to point and shoots (or perhaps the dreadful Canon kit lens!) but if you're interested in corner/edge sharpness you can do a lot better - and the 16-45 F4 is a lot better.

[michael_kuhne]

The Phoenix 19-35mm may contain the same glass as the Tokina version, which really is exceptionally good quality, especially for the price.

 

For years I have had inexpensive light weight zooms for casual use. Fine for casual family snapshots, etc. But yes, I don't doubt the Pentax 16-45mm, which does indeed have superior edge sharpness, or the Sigma 17-70mm will yield better results. I bypassed the kit zoom because I already have other usable general-purpose zooms. If you get the wide and/or long zoom for now, you can make your own comparisons, and then may also even consider looking into the new Pentax fast "pro" zoom, the 16-50mm f/2.8 just coming out.

[robert_nancarrow]

Stephen, I have the 50-200 and a number of other pentax lenses including some limiteds. I guess the term "remarkable" is subjective and can mean different things to different people. I've compared both kit lenses with the primes and I find the kits remarkable in that they are very sharp for kit lenses, close to the primes when viewing on screen or for 8x10's. Of course, get larger and the corners/distortion/sharpness differences become apparent. The colors and contrast are very good in the kits although the 50-200 is a little less saturated than most other pentax lenses. I think that the raves about the kits is based on the quality/usability you get for such a great price. The 18-55 is sometimes only 20 dollars added to a body and the 50-200 can be had for under 200 dollars, that's the really "remarkable" part. Bob.

[stephen_van_egmond1]

Sorry,

I suppose I should clarify what I meant by "remarkable". Remarkable for what it is, which is essentially a cost center in the prodction of the camera kit. The obvious approach would be to make a lens that makes the owner only barely satisfied with owning the camera, and hungry to upgrade to other lenses. I've found the kit lens to exceed that by a decent margin. Close focusing is great, and the corner performance is (to me) good but not great.

 

I happen to have the kit lens and the Sigma 17-70 here at my office, so I shot a pictre of my desk diorama with both lenses. Attached.

[stephen_van_egmond1]

Woops, not attached. Take two.<div></div>

[stephen_van_egmond1]

... pentax lens:

 

(sorry, I have no idea how to attach two images to a posting)<div></div>

[steve graham]

"The Phoenix 19-35mm may contain the same glass as the Tokina version, which really is exceptionally good quality, especially for the price."

 

I think it was sold under a number of brands (Cosina, Vivitar etc) but I'm not sure about Tokina - could be though. The build quality wasn't great but optically it was suprisingly good and I used to use it a fair bit on my film bodies despite also having the Tokina ATX-Pro 20-35 F2.8.

[renatoa]

From this two pictures I can't see anything in favor of a lens of other. First the size, and then the composition... how to judge corner sharpness when 3 of 4 corners are out of focus ?

[celasun]

I think "Stephen Graham" uploaded the same photo twice; the two are identical.

[stephen_van_egmond1]

Sorry, folks. Those were a) pretty boneheaded photographic examples, b) accidentally identical, and c) useless at the resolutions provided. I'm rushed in other matters and procrastinating here at photo.net, giving lousy results in both endeavours.

 

If I can contribute something of value let me know by email, but for now I think it's time I left the room with what's left of my dignity.

 

Apologies.

[steve graham]

"I think "Stephen Graham" uploaded the same photo twice; the two are identical."

 

I didn't upload either photo - Stephen van Egmond did!

[celasun]

Sorry! :))

[thebs]

Now that I have the DA 16-45mm f/4, I virtually <b>never</b> pull out my Zenitar 16mm Fisheye f/2.8 anymore. If you've got US$500 to drop, then the Sigma DC EX 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is a nice complement to the DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. But if you just want a since wide lens, I cannot say enough good about the DA 16-45mm f/4.

 

Here's an virtually unedited (sans cutting the top and a little bit of the bottom) shot I took the weekend at the opening of <i>BrightHouse Networks Stadium</i> in Orlando at half-time when it was very overcast and the lighting wasn't that good -- with a circular polarizer on, so my sky came out <b>far better</b> than the official UCFPhotos.COM shots IMHO (let alone anyone else's):

<a href=" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/1389655444_6371b75b2d_b.jpg"></img></a>