Originally posted by zxaar I would rather take antipodal view to article in OP.
I would like to argue that Kit lense is the one thing i would avoid at all costs.
There are hundreds , thousands and millions of cameras sold very year. A great amount of which are used with the lense that comes with it. Lets call it a kit lense. (coupling fixed lenses too).
These hundreds , thousands and millions of buyers take pictures just as you and me would do.
Well, that's one approach. But I don't think the problem is that everyone is using the same lens. If a lens is used creatively, it can take very different pictures. The problem with the kit lens is that it is outclassed by nearly every lens that shares a portion of its focal length, whether prime or zoom; so that any talented photographer using a kit lens is not maximizing his talent. He is capable of doing better work — if he had a better lens.
“Sharpness, usually considered the single most desirable quality in a lens, varied little between the $1,000–$1,500 pro and $100–$450 entry-level zooms. In fact, based on sharpness alone, we couldn’t determine whether 11×14 test prints were made with budget or pro glass. And that’s only half the story. . .”
This is potentially deceptive. If the quality of the test prints wasn't so great, of course you're not going to notice any difference. I can't attest to the quality of Nikon or Canon kit lenses; but I have a number of lenses that are sharper than both versions of the Pentax kit lens, including the DA 12-24, the K 28/3.5, the M 50/1.7, the M 50/2, the M 28/2.8, the A 35-105/3.5, the K 200/4, and the DA* 300/4. Most of these lens are also superior in terms color rendition and micro contrast.
It's even worse when one compares the DA* 300 to a consumer grade telephoto zoom, like the Tamron 75-300. The DA* 300 is much sharper; there's no way you wouldn't notice it in an 11x14 print.