18-55 WR for serious work?

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Just wondered if anyone here has used the Pentax 18-55mm WR for any 'serious' work at all, or just assumed it is not good enough.</p>

<p>If anyone has done so, any tips for getting the best out of it?</p>

<p>cheers Steve.</p>

[bob_stevenson]

<p>Use f8 and put the camera on a tripod or use electronic flash.</p>

<p>The kit lens is amazingly good when used at f8 but I have found that performance drops off quickly at any other apertures. It has a 'parabolic' sharpness curve. At f8 it's very nearly as good as the 50mm lenses at anything up to an A3 (11x16 inches) print. By and large, it makes sense to only use apertures larger than f8 with all lenses with these cameras as the size of the sensor determines that diffraction starts to take it's toll with any aperture smaller than about f5.6</p>

<p>Try to always support the camera (either on tripod or clamp etc) for anything serious and always try to use the self-timer so that any mirror movement is eliminated as much as possible.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>Very enough,unless estimate skill of people who spend big money on fast glass or become pro of whole collection of limited lens.Some great example what this lens does in low light in normal setting</p><div></div>

[mggm59]

 

 

<p>I posted a few days ago a couple of comparisons of the non WR version with the acclaimed 28-70 FA f2.8 (a professional fast lens deemed to be the best zoom in this focal range),<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Xm83<br>

and as you can see at f8 is not bad at all, a bit soft at the corners and a tad harsher. The top of the picture with the titles got cut off, the left column is the 28-80. This comparison convinced to sell the 28-70 if I can get good money. If you need I have more focal lengths and apertures compared, taken with a K20.</p>

 

 

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>Depends on what you goal is.</p>

<p>The idea that in the internet age you need the utmost resolution from the camera and lens is foolish. Most flaws are fixable, and most images are never used at max resolution or beyond.</p>

<p>The other thing to remember, is generally speaking, only photographers are terribly concerned with 2px of CA vs. 3px or whatever.</p>

<p>Really it comes down to what your output is. if your publishing to a web based magazine or news print you don't need much from the camera, lens or sensor. Even printed magazines don't require all that much from what digital systems are capable of, but if you end up printing larger images for fine art sales, than you might have an issue.</p>

<p>It's kinda funny really, the needs of file size and quality have actually reduced as we move from print media to digital media, yet the cameras seem to be getting more to the point of surpassing even the needs of most print photographers needs.</p>

<p>I guess when higher res digital mediums come about some of this technology won't be wasted, but it seems we are stuck at HD TV res (or lower, such as iPad res) for a little while at least!</p>

[anthony_bhe]

<p>Like everyone else has said, it can give good results if you are taking pictures in settings where it gives good results. The kit lens has gone through a couple of revisions, 18-55 WR is based on a slightly revised and improved optical formula compared to the original. I had the Mk I version of the lens and I thought it offered good color and decent sharpness. </p>

<p>Where I found the kit lens lacking were in situations where it was never designed to perform - wide angle and wide aperture. It only goes down to 18mm and the widest aperture was f3.5 - f5.6. I needed something more than it could deliver on both counts, but if you don't it is a good value that can produce some nice photographs. </p>

 

[richard_skoonberg]

<p>Look at the review of the lens on SLR Gear. It is a good site and they do thorough lens testing. They liked this lens. When you compare it to similar that are more expensive, it does quite well. Here is the link: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1172/cat/46<br>

At 35mm and longer, it is very sharp lens. Wider it acts like other wide angle zooms -- which is okay. They are all just okay. When you go wide, either you put up with or buy primes.<br>

Use the MTF feature on your camera if you have it. In program mode, it will automatically choose the best aperture for a given focal length.<br>

The WR feature is a great feature. I shoot outdoors and often get caught in the rain, but I keep shooting.</p>

[michellemandat]

<p>You can do serious work with the kit lens. Very high quality, not, go to another lens. Mine is a Sigma 17-70. Some little bad things also but better at f5,6 than the kit lens.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Anything "serious" has to be done n 10x8" film as far as I'm concerned :P</p>

[edhombre]

<p>Just to chime in... I found mine to be very acceptable at f8, good enough at f5.6 and ok at lower apertures. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 I use now is much sharper at every aperture but I used my kit lens as my wide lens for paid work for 3 years and never had any complaints. I still carry mine around as backup and to use in inclement conditions etc. Have no fear about whether the shots will be good enough if light is reasonable.</p>

<p>Used wide open it will certainly still get the shot and as already noted it is a little bit sharper at the tele end, even at same aperture. Still, if the light demands would not hesitate to use it wide open.</p>

<p>If you need a faster lens you need a faster lens but if armed with the above knowledge in this thread and using the lens where it is best if you're not taking acceptable photos the problem is not the lens.</p>

 

[kfrog]

<p>Sure, I don't see why not. Check out the Pentax Photo Gallery. 217 accepted photos using the DA18-55mm.<br>

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home?#section=EXIF-LENS&subSection=3790&subSubSection=9469095&language=EN</p>

[mountainvisions]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anything "serious" has to be done n 10x8" film as far as I'm concerned :P</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>According to Bob Krist, the some what famous travel photographer, resolution is irrelevant as media shifts to digital output for final viewing.</p>

<p>Which is why I wonder how much lens and sensor we need, and how perfect it needs to be.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm not the only one wondering this!</p>

 

[jpo3136b]

<p>If it's not serious enough, paint a frowny face on the lens cap. Maybe that'll help. Why would it not be good enough? </p>

[ukhov]

<p>All I see, ..boys problem separate kit lens from the kit in next spend they money on some thing tricky and never know -never fell what his camera is good for or even same glass they trade for!</p>

[ukhov]

<p>All I see, ..boys problem separate kit lens from the kit in next spend they money on some thing tricky and never know -never fell what his camera is good for or even same glass they trade for!</p>

[mggm59]

<p>Justin, I agree on the principle, but image quality is also other things, like aberrations, vignetting and distortions, and some of those show even on digital output. And cropping makes some differences appear too.<br>

I have been working a couple of years as editor in a printed magazine (and many more years as a freelance photographer-journalist), and I realized that picture editors looked at the absolute quality just because they perceived it in an almost unconscious way (if that makes sense in English). If it is crisp and jumps at you, you choose it. And that's a hundred bucks or two for a photographer rather than the other. Of course a lot of other things need to be good upfront, but when you have the final 10 on the screen (or on the light table, as it was still happening at the time), to illustrate an article that can be the tie break. I junked the Pentax 100-300 and took the plunge for the Sigma 80-200 2.8 after realizing that, and I sold more pictures thereafter. <br>

Of course you (and Yury) are correct that a lot of the people asking these questions are not seeing their pictures on anything more than a screen or in FB, but I suspect that those who come to this forum have a higher chance than the average pointandshooter of doing something more than that, sooner or later.<br>

Also, given more or less the same money, why not take the better lens, even if you are not using its quality in 99.9% of the cases? You might want to print a poster sized one once in a while, and you might regret having saved a few dollars. Once upon a time I was quoted this motto appearing in the office (if I remember well) of a Vivitar executive: "Bitterness of poor quality remains long after sweetness of low price is forgotten". It often came to my mind when I had a nice shot taken with a poor lens (when I was young and penniless) and I tried to remember it thereafter.<br>

For sure resolution in the sense of higher and higher pixel count is nonsense, and I am happy to see that Pentax (or should we say Sony?) is now putting emphasis on something more useful as noise (when will they do it also for small chips for compacts like the Lumix TZ series, it's their only remaining defect). </p>

[ukhov]

<p>-Thanks,Maurizio! We do truly agree on above statment,however never even estimate you may continiue talk technical issue and leave idea of photography clean as virgin on it own with out any magic to support for beginer</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Maurizio,</p>

<p>First off, great response and wonderfully informative!</p>

<p>I definitely wasn't implying you should choose an inferior product, and inevitably the image you shoot with the inferior setup will be the one that you DO need the higher quality from. Believe me, this has happened to me a few times. As a matter of fact there is one print I get asked about all the time,and sadly I am not comfortable going above 10x15 which is a big loss for me!</p>

<p>That is of course the issue, if you are planning to ever print a larger image, or sell an image on it's own as a large print, saving a few bucks might cost you many more down the road.</p>

<p>At the same time, when I was shooting for a local web based sports publication that also handled the trading cards for the team, I never needed more than 3MP and even then we scaled down. Since I couldn't sell the images besides at the teams gift shops, and the only print output we were doing was for sports cards, I had absolutely no reason to shoot at 6, 8, 10, 20MP. 3MP was plenty for a reasonable 8x10 or a sports card, and way too much for web use!</p>

<p>So if in doubt, go with a better lens and more resolution, if you know for sure that whatever you are shooting is going to the web and the web only, then it's just a matter of having enough to please the editor!</p>

<p>But like you said, don't be bitter down the road that your once in a lifetime shot was created on inferior equipment!</p>

[mggm59]

<p>If it is "not lasting" pictures that are born for and will die on the web, I totally agree.<br>

Mine are probably just bad habits. Even if I stopped working as a sort of part time professional a few years ago, I just keep wasting a lot of money and card (and HD) space with top rez Raw and JPEG (although now pixel contus got so high that to save some space I shoot JPEGs at 6MP, more than enough for most normal jobs), even for holiday pics. Too lazy, but at least I do not import the RAWs in Aperture with the specific function not to overload its database.</p>