I think the answer really depends on what you photograph, the size prints you make (if you even make prints), and your personal standards. I've used both, although the 18-55 for only a few hours at the most. I had a 16-45 for about a month.
The 18-55 is a very good value, and a better, if not a much better, lens than its price or its status as a basic kit lens might indicate. The 16-45 is a little sharper, and, it seemed to me, offered a bit better contrast. I also liked the fact that the 16-45 is a constant aperture lens. I believe it's really worth more than the 18-55, but how much more I can't really say. I don't know the cost difference to you. Both lenses will work well as a "walking around" lens, but for really critical work, I'd prefer a prime. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J and K Messervy > My ist DL came with the Sigma 18-50, so the bar has been set pretty low. > > I gather the Pentax 18-55 is quite a bit better. > > My question is, is the Pentax 16-45 a big enough improvement over the 18-55 > to warrent the extra $? > > What are the areas where improvement will be noticeable? Sharpness, colour, > etc? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
