Reading mode: Light Dark

18-55 DAL Alternatives?

Go to last post
SRT201

SRT201

Senior Member
Messages
2,713
Reaction score
316
Location
US
Okay I really like my new K-x, but the 18-55 DAL kit lens... not so much. It's okay, but I've been spoiled by my Olympus 14-42 which is a whole different grade of lens. The 18-55 often looks soft, even when the K-x AF worked perfectly.

I would like to approach the edge sharpness of the Zuiko without spending a load of cash for the Pentax.

I was looking at the 18-55 AL II.

Any other ideas?

Thanks,

Scott

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
 
SRT201 said:
Okay I really like my new K-x, but the 18-55 DAL kit lens... not so much. It's okay, but I've been spoiled by my Olympus 14-42 which is a whole different grade of lens. The 18-55 often looks soft, even when the K-x AF worked perfectly.

I would like to approach the edge sharpness of the Zuiko without spending a load of cash for the Pentax.

I was looking at the 18-55 AL II.

Any other ideas?

Thanks,

Scott

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
Click to expand...
The DAL and DA II are the same optically. You would see no improvement.

--
Regards,
Dan

My Photos:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danielfranco
http://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/
 
Wow... that's a surprise!

Not a good one. :-(

I thought the DAL was the 18-55 version 1. I read about the vignetting on the version 1 and I would have to say the vignetting on my 18-55 DAL is pretty bad at 18mm. Yeah... DCU4 can be used to fix that but I don't want to post process all my wide snap shots.

I just assumed that the DA II would be much better as it was supposed to fix the vignetting issues the version I lens was known for.

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
 
SRT201 said:
I just assumed that the DA II would be much better as it was supposed to fix the vignetting issues the version I lens was known for.
Click to expand...
It's improved, but not 100%.

On the other hand, with a decent PP program like Lightroom, Aperture, or ACDSee Pro, you can instantly correct vignetting for as many photos as you like in a single click.

The "step up" models from the 18-55 are the 16-45 (if you can still find one) or the 17-70 - or for a real step up, the 16-50/2.8. Tamron and Sigma both make lenses similar to the 16-50/2.8 as well for less money, and Sigma also makes their own 17-70.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
Do a forum search for the Pentax 16-45. I don't personally have it, but I almost bought it based on the comments here. Many people claim it is as sharp as a prime throughout most of its range. Obviously I can't verify that myself, but if I were looking to replace my 18-55 with a zoom without spending too much, that is the one I'd pick. I frequently see it on the Pentax Forums Marketplace for around $250.

Another option is to do what I did and get the 35/2.4 with the intent of adding a wider prime (15 and/or 21) later.

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt
 
Looking at the photozone.de data for the DA 18-55mm I, it seems the weakest part of the lens is at the wide end. If you are OK with the longer focal lengths on the DAL, then maybe you should just go for a ultra wide that would cover the area were the 18-55mm is failing down? This would expand your kit as a bonus. Most of the ultra wides are going to have pretty good optical performance from 14mm and up. The less expensive ultra wides will be a little slow in the 16-20/24mm range. The Pentax 12-24mm is a constant f4 and a great lens throughout its range, but it isn't going to be cheap.

If you can hang on for a while, photozone is supposed to be working on a review of the 18-135mm. That to would expand your kit as well, assuming it is better than 18-55mm at the wide end and covers your needs there.

Sigma has a 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 that goes for around US $200. SLRgear has a review of it on a Canon body. I haven't seen any other reviews of the lens.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1249

The Pentax 17-70mm looks like the better lens in $400 plus range. You would be in the same price range as the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The Tamron is a little bit more uneven in this performance than the Pentax according the the photozone data. You would have to make the decision of better peak performance a smaller apertures over more consistent performance over all apertures.

The DA 16-45mm f4 is probably has the best performance to cost ratio, and the 16mm is a really nice to have. TriState has it for sale for $318, so it would be $150-170 less than the DA 17-70mm.

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/
 
In fact the basic kit lens the 18-55 DAL is a great lens for pratically nothing.
The 18-55 II is in fact an improvement in details over the original.
The third version is with a plastic bajonet and the same optically as the first.

The fourth version is a brilliant little kit lens and has been improved with AL, new lens elements and WR (Weather Resistant). Also has ED.

Every time they come out they are tested as the best Kit lenses against Canon and Nikon.
More often then not the fault is that of the photographer and not the lens.
Stop down one maybe two stops and you have a brilliant photo.

The altenative is to buy a much more expensive lens and if it is a Pentax there is no gain in apperture.

The 18-135 is a great lens with AL and ED lenses and is IF (internal focusing) and may just be the alternative you are looking for.
But remember there is no gain in apperture it remains 3,5/5,6

I have chosen the 18-55 AL WR (fourth version) above the 18-135. I save weight and even though it is not mentioned it also has an ED lens built in. In combination with the 55-300 it is my favourite and no regrets.
Lots of photo pleasure.
 
I didn't know there was a fourth version. From what others have said the DAL, AL II and WR versions are optically the same. Would you agree?

I have certainly noted that it sharpens up stopped down to 7.1 or 8 but that does little for the edges which get rather smeared at any aperture.

The vignetting is really quite off-putting as well. Yes I can correct all my photos afterward but that much vignetting just seems to indicate some serious corner-cutting when on in the design.

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
 
Seriously look for a DA16-45. Significantly better, still quite light, should be pretty cheap now as its not flavour of the month... There was a time when it was DA18-55 or DA16-45 :-)

Only complaint most people had was the shortish zoom range. Otherwise the 17-70 is good too. In fact I find it had to tell the difference between the DA12-24 and the DA16-45. the new DA18-135 isn't too bad either, but its priced a bit more but does have range and weather sealing.

--
Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pentaxphotogallery/justinwatson
 
havdberg1 said:
In fact the basic kit lens the 18-55 DAL is a great lens for pratically nothing.
The 18-55 II is in fact an improvement in details over the original.
The third version is with a plastic bajonet and the same optically as the first.

The fourth version is a brilliant little kit lens and has been improved with AL, new lens elements and WR (Weather Resistant). Also has ED.

Every time they come out they are tested as the best Kit lenses against Canon and Nikon.
More often then not the fault is that of the photographer and not the lens.
Stop down one maybe two stops and you have a brilliant photo.

The altenative is to buy a much more expensive lens and if it is a Pentax there is no gain in apperture.

The 18-135 is a great lens with AL and ED lenses and is IF (internal focusing) and may just be the alternative you are looking for.
But remember there is no gain in apperture it remains 3,5/5,6

I have chosen the 18-55 AL WR (fourth version) above the 18-135. I save weight and even though it is not mentioned it also has an ED lens built in. In combination with the 55-300 it is my favourite and no regrets.
Lots of photo pleasure.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is cow poo...

DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 AL 12-9 elements, minimum focus distance 0.25m, 52mm filter, dimensions 68 x 67.5mm, weight 225g

DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 AL II 11-8 elements, minimum focus distance 0.25m, 52mm filter, dimensions 68 x 67.5mm, weight 220g

DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 AL WR 11-8 elements, minimum focus distance 0.25m, 52mm filter, dimensions 68.5 x 67.5mm, weight 230g

DA L 18-55/3.5-5.6 AL11-8 elements, minimum focus distance 0.25m, 52mm filter, dimensions 68 x 67.5mm, weight 200g

2, 3 and 4 are the same! They have the same AL element. The only differences are Mount, QS and WS! Even the original had an AL element.

Please don't make stuff up.

--
Regards,
Dan

My Photos:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danielfranco
http://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/
 
Thanks for the specs.

Man... the vignetting on the version 1 must have been terrible if the current DAL vignetting is considered much better!

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
 
SRT201 said:
Thanks for the specs.

Man... the vignetting on the version 1 must have been terrible if the current DAL vignetting is considered much better!

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
Click to expand...
Vignette isn't that big a problem as it is easily corrected later. Sadly only higher end lenses have profiles in Lightroom.

Even more expensive faster lenses can vignette a lot. My DA* 16-50 f/2.8 can be uneven wide open. It is custom profiled though so takes one click to correct. You will not find a wide zoom that does not suffer some vignette.

I know some newer cameras can correct for lens distortion and aberrations in JPEG mode. Don't know if it is available on yours though.

If you can get the 17-70 you should notice an improvement but it won't be huge. Vignette will still be visible wide open. The nicest thing is the silent autofocus because of the SDM.

--
Regards,
Dan

My Photos:
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danielfranco
http://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/
 
SRT201 said:
Thanks for the specs.

Man... the vignetting on the version 1 must have been terrible if the current DAL vignetting is considered much better!
Click to expand...
My impression from the tests I've seen/read about is that the level of vignetting isn't very much different between the two versions of the lens. I have the original (Mk 1) version, and I've never thought the vignetting was all that terrible, especially considering it's a kit zoom. Yes, it's present, particularly at the wide angle end of things, but not enough that I generally feel I have to correct for it.
--
--DrewE
 
There is another solution for your dilemma of what to do about the kit lens.

I too have read that it is better than competitor offerings - well, they must be quite bad to start with if the pentax kit lens is the best of the kit lenses!

Yes, it is soft, no matter how carefully I try to focus it. Soft is a relative term but I mean edges are not as crisp as I have seen in images done with other lenses.

But recently I tried out DxO software, which has a lens sharpness function and the end result, after running some of my kit lens images through this software, was chalk and cheese - there is a visible improvement to sharpness and detail resolution.

DxO does this to both raw and jpeg images and without the haloes you can get with the unsharp mask function

Maybe this is a solution - it is a lot cheaper than a new lens and you can try DxO for free to see if it will address your needs.

For the record, the DAL and DAII are both slightly improved over the original DA kit lens - I tested the DA 2 against the DA 1 and could see small improvements in contrast - sharpness was visibly the same and PF was fractionally reduced - the difference was not worth the money to replace the original lens with the Mk 2 version.

My comments on the benefit of DxO refers to the DAL (Mk 2) lens, which came with my K-X.
--
jamesza
 
After spending some more time with it I realize my initial judgement may have been a little too harsh.

The 18-55 DAL is not a terrible lens. No it's not a Zuiko zoom. Few lenses from anybody are rated like the Zuiko 12-60 (which I can't afford).

Then again, Olympus has it a bit easier even in their kit lenses because of the more square aspect of the 4/3 imager. An APS-C imager is naturally going to give a lens designer a tougher time remaining sharp as the left and right edges are further from center relative to the top and bottom edges.

Yes, the far right and left can be pretty smeared at 18mm on the 18-55 but if you take the lens for what it is and bring it in a bit it looks quite a bit better.

Kinda goes with my signature line. :-)

--
Happiness is a want... Contentment is a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top