Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2011, 03:51 PM   #121
elg
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
photozones conclusion on the first version of the kit lens was
This was true back then, but it is not true any more, because both Canon and Nikon improved their kit lenses.

Even back then on Photozone.de:

Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX optical quality was rated as 3.5 stars, mechanical - just 1.5 stars;

Later version (version II) of Nikkor was rated the same. Now Nikon sells version III of this lens - the one with the VR.

while

Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL optical quality was rated as 2.5 stars (i.e. worse than Nikkor), but mechanical quality was rated as 3 stars (i.e. a better than Nikkor). With very good overall price/performance rating being slightly better than the second version of the equivalent Nikkor.
But this Pentax lens was the one with a metal mount (i.e. better built than the current DAL version).

The cheap DAL version of the Pentax lens is really nothing exciting. Nothing disappointing either. It is what it is - an inexpensive plastic kit lens. If it was something exiting, its users will not be in a hurry to upgrade.

I have read Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax forums during different time periods.

On Canon forum I read: "18-55mm is actually one of the better kit lenses around".
On Nikon: "18-55mm is probably the sharpest kit lens"
On Pentax - well, you know.
Olympus users are probably the same.

Since I owned eos 350D with the kit lens I can say that from the build quality perspective back then it was worse than the current Pentax DAL kit lens. The front element was rotating during focusing. The manual focusing ring was thin and flimsy. The build quality was quite cheap overall. Pentax DAL 18-55mm is definitely better built, but this is unfair comparison, because I'm comparing old Canon kit, with the new Pentax kit.

In the background of the more recent Oly, Pany, Canon and Nikon kit lenses the Pentax DAL 18-55 kit lens looks quite average.


Last edited by elg; 01-06-2011 at 03:53 PM. Reason: spelling correction
01-06-2011, 04:36 PM   #122
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by theunartist Quote
Too tempting to pass this up and as far as I can tell, this thread is just for the fun of it...

"Billions of people prefer a MacDonalds's burger to a ribeye steak..." because of one thing one thing only, affordablity, not everybody has the coin for a good steak...
You can buy a small ribeye steak for about 5 bucks. And yes, you have to cook it yourself.

A Big Mac is about $2.50, so I really don't think it's about having the coin.

$2.50 isn't going to make or break most people, especially when we average it over the millions of McDonald's customers every day.

The fact is, millions of people, every day, choose the Big Mac over making their own steak, and cost is the least factor contributing to this. It's taste.

They simply prefer it.
01-06-2011, 04:50 PM   #123
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by papillon_65 Quote
Your assertion is that I have not checked this lens exhaustively. Well if shooting static scenes from a tripod at varying focal lengths and apertures is not a good test of a lens then I'm not sure what is? Yes I did switch SR off as well. I test all new lenses and check them for faults so I know for sure that these lenses are not acceptable for me.
I have made no such assumption. I rather assume others know what they're talking about and so give them the benefit of the doubt. My previous post should have shown this - and as with most things in photography, YMMV...

QuoteQuote:
I fail to see what purpose a whole new thread of 18-55mm images is going to do in terms of my opinion, but if it floats your boat crack on.
You're thinking it's all about you!
Such an idea is not for your benefit but for everyone on the forum who is interested in seeing what the kit lens can do.
01-06-2011, 05:48 PM   #124
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hampton Roads
Photos: Albums
Posts: 336
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
The fact is, millions of people, every day, choose the Big Mac over making their own steak, and cost is the least factor contributing to this. It's taste. They simply prefer it.
This is a bigger mystery than the Bermuda Triangle.

I'd rather shoot with a kit lens than eat a Big Mac.

01-06-2011, 06:25 PM   #125
Forum Member
papillon_65's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Berkshoire, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I have made no such assumption. I rather assume others know what they're talking about and so give them the benefit of the doubt. My previous post should have shown this - and as with most things in photography, YMMV...

But you were not prepared to assume that I do lol

You're thinking it's all about you!
Such an idea is not for your benefit but for everyone on the forum who is interested in seeing what the kit lens can do.
Well most of the recent posts have been about my opinion so that's not an unnatural assumption to make. It's ok, if someone wants to spawn yet another pointless thread about how marvellous this lens is then I guess that's up to them. A more realistic critique would be more beneficial to anyone considering buying it.
It's interesting that no-one questioned my opinion of the 50-200mm DAL, now how could that be lol.
Still, the next time I criticise this lens I'll be aware it's akin to blasphemy
01-06-2011, 06:46 PM   #126
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by papillon_65 Quote
Well most of the recent posts have been about my opinion so that's not an unnatural assumption to make. It's ok, if someone wants to spawn yet another pointless thread about how marvellous this lens is then I guess that's up to them. A more realistic critique would be more beneficial to anyone considering buying it.
It's interesting that no-one questioned my opinion of the 50-200mm DAL, now how could that be lol.
Still, the next time I criticise this lens I'll be aware it's akin to blasphemy
I cannot change the way you think - I did not make any judgements of your assessment of your own kit lenses - and I am done talking about that.
There are plenty of threads that discuss the 50-200, including user opinions on how it is also good value but as ordinary as the 18-55, particularly when there is the 55-300 available (just not a WR version) - this is not the place for a rebuttal.

As for the 18-55 lens, what's to blaspheme? You're being melodramatic - it's a piece of plastic and some glass. For what it does and is designed to do, it doesn't do too badly. That is as far as I'm going with it. And I think we've gone far enough with this...

Last edited by Ash; 01-06-2011 at 09:43 PM.
01-06-2011, 09:39 PM   #127
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Ira: I appreciate the attempt at the analogy, but it doesn't hold water:

Billions of people prefer a McDonald's burger to a ribeye steak, and actually, that burger is a lot HEATHIER than the steak, because it contains breading and less fat.

Saying that the steak is "better' because you perceive it that way doesn't make it better by any measurable/quantifiable factors.

I had to go to school for years with a-holes who preferred Frankenberry to Count Chocula, so I'm particularly sensitive to this issue.

HAH!!!

Ira:

Thanks for your response. Just a couple of things:

I neither mentioned steak, nor did I compare eating steak to a fast food burger.

BTW, I was a big Boo Berry eater--how can you possibly leave Boo Berry out of the loop here? Are there no limits to how low you will sink? I can't believe you left one of the 3 orginal, great cereal monsters out of the loop--you Fruit Loop
QuoteQuote:
Ash: it's a piece of plastic and some glass. For what it does and is designed to do, it doesn't do too badly.
I do not think anyone here would disagree--and it is in line with the OPs words, "nothing exciting."
01-06-2011, 11:05 PM   #128
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,503
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
My credibility when discussing photo gear is in my gallery.
Not all of us post to galleries here and not all of us include a link to our stuff in our sig. I, for one, post to flickr and link to those images from here. So it might not be completely valid to criticize based on lack of shared images.

That being said, I have long felt that people who are hypercritical regarding gear other than their personal choices are just particularly anal retentive or truly believe that realization of their photographic vision is only as close as the next page of their checkbook. Unfortunately, their money is usually not particularly well spent. OTOH, I have seen wonderful recent work done with simple box cameras, antique folders, and magic lantern lenses from 100 years ago as well as cheap rangefinders from the '70s.

As for me, I live under the delusion that I have done some of my best work using lenses in the under $35 price range. I get all kinds of pitying looks when shooting at the tourist spots near my home. First I pull out my junk Pentax camera and then I have to show my poor taste by mounting it to some hokey Russian lenses. My child will not be seen with me when I am shooting.


Steve

01-06-2011, 11:12 PM   #129
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I get all kinds of pitying looks when shooting at the tourist spots near my home. First I pull out my junk Pentax camera and then I have to show my poor taste by mounting it to some hokey Russian lenses. My child will not be seen with me when I am shooting.


Steve

You'll just have to live with the stigma of being an eccentric photographer turning heads everywhere you go for all the wrong reasons - and create fine art from your photos regardless...
01-06-2011, 11:15 PM   #130
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,503
QuoteOriginally posted by papillon_65 Quote
Clearly I'm not using these lenses because they aren't up to standard so I'd hardly be taking images with them would I lol. My photostream is below, knock yourself out (but do not post my images here, people can view them where they are). My best two lenses are the Zuiko's 12-60mm and 50-200mm, alongside plenty of others.
I'm an amateur photographer, does that mean I can't take images or have an opinion?

Flickr: Raptorcapture's Photostream
Cool photos...

Not up to my personal standards, but that can be changed by dumping the Olympus and Panasonic gear...

Just kidding...

Seriously though, having done this quality of work and being happy with your equipment, why were you even wasting your time with a sub-$150 lens to the point where you bought several copies trying to get a sweet one?


Steve
01-06-2011, 11:17 PM   #131
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,503
QuoteOriginally posted by unixrevolution Quote
Not only that, but everyone who uses a particular lens may have vastly different ideas of what it should do, or what it needs to do to work for them. A meal at Burger King is vastly superior to one at a steakhouse if you want something fast and inexpensive. It may even be more flavorful.
...no kidding...steak gives me heartburn...


Steve
01-06-2011, 11:21 PM   #132
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,503
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Even more practical would be a Mini-Challenge with any version of the kit lens, posted with intact EXIF for all to see. Could even be a thematic challenge: "Kit lens wonder".
I believe that might be called the "Kit Lens Club" thread


The idea of the monthly contest being limited to a piece of common kit is interesting though.


Steve
01-06-2011, 11:32 PM   #133
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,503
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
BTW, I was a big Boo Berry eater--how can you possibly leave Boo Berry out of the loop here? Are there no limits to how low you will sink? I can't believe you left one of the 3 orginal, great cereal monsters out of the loop--you Fruit Loop
I hate pre-sugared cereals. They are pure junk and the spawn of that junk food is evident in the quality of logic and writing on this thread. I tried three bowls of Boo Berry and even went back to the supermarket to try a different box, but all were inferior to shredded wheat. The texture was poor to start with and was completely unacceptable after mere moments in the milk whereas shredded wheat is good for hours without softening!

Now some of you may think that I have no experience with breakfast, but I can provide evidence of years of experience with the meal, though I won't post it here. The bottom line is that those of you that eat Boo Berry lack good taste and don't know what good food is.

Now where are my pills...I must remember the doctor's instructions..."Steve, remember to work WITH the medication..."


Steve


(Really should go to bed, but this is starting to get fun! And I have NOT been drinking!)
01-07-2011, 02:34 AM - 1 Like   #134
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Forgive me if you've read this before -- some salient point about the 18-55:

* The 18-55 is not as good optically as some zooms that cost much more.
* The 18-55's optical shortcomings are rather easily fixed in post-processing.
* The 18-55 is likely the first lens on the first dSLR of inexperienced shooters.
* The vast majority of 18-55 users will never know that the lens sucks.
* The vast majority of 18-55 users are not aware of PentaxForums.Com.
* Many 18-55 owners will never use any other lens on their camera.
And:
* The most perfectly-exposed, finely-detailed shot of boring crap is still a shot of boring crap.

In other words, if you make your living at landscape or architectural or wildlife or sports or macro photography, the 18-55 probably isn't your go-to lens. If you're shooting pictures of people doing people stuff in people settings, and/or you don't have the budget|time|desire to build a great lens kit, it just *might* be your go-to lens. Beyond that, we all have opinions (and certain anatomical features) and the more trivial the dispute, the more vehemently it will be argued. It's a Holy War, folks. Take cover!

And maybe my taste buds are shot, but MacBurgers have always tasted like shit to me. Whoppers are much better. And I'm a granola-cruncher. Candied cereals are... perverted.
01-07-2011, 03:07 AM   #135
Forum Member
papillon_65's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Berkshoire, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Cool photos...

Not up to my personal standards, but that can be changed by dumping the Olympus and Panasonic gear...

Just kidding...

Seriously though, having done this quality of work and being happy with your equipment, why were you even wasting your time with a sub-$150 lens to the point where you bought several copies trying to get a sweet one?


Steve
steve, thanks, I'll elaborate a little more on my foray into the Pentax world. I'm a long time Olympus user and also now use some Panasonic/Oly M4/3's gear. With Olympus seeming to abandon lower end DSLR's I wanted a small lightweight DSLR for travel and reportage stuff. The K-x is going for a song in the UK with the twin kit lens deal.
Having had a very positive experience with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 I also fancied some more prime lenses so Pentax seemed a natural choice for me. I'm not a big fan of the Canikon ethos of crippling their lower end bodies.
To that end I picked up the Pentax K-x with 18-55mm and 50-200mm. I had heard some good things about these two lenses so I thought this kit would suit me for lightweight travel with one or two primes. Unfortunately the 18-55mm did not meet my expectations and that is now well documented . The reason I tried another version of the 18-55mm is that I thought I must have a bum copy. Unfortunately the second one was just the same. No matter, I did some more research and discovered that the 16-45mm is highly regarded and a bit of a bargain price. I've now bought one and I think it is excellent value, certainly a decent performer and good enough. Bear in mind I do have a Zuiko 12-60mm so I've got a pretty good idea how a decent zoom performs. I also picked up a 35mm 2.4 DAL which I also really like. So now I have the 16-45mm, 50-200mm (which is fine) and the 35mm 2.4. They all fit into a small bag with the camera and fulfil what I originally wanted.
I originally intend to pick up the 15mm F4 DA but I decided it is too expensive for what it is, namely a slow prime. Maybe one day.
I'm not a gear snob by any means, I still use an Olympus E-1 DSLR, a 5mp camera which still does a great job and is probably one of the best built DSLR's ever. My two best lenses, the Zuiko's 12-60mm and 50-200mm are both second hand.
I have been spoilt by the quality of Zuiko zooms, no doubt but that's neither here nor there. The 18-55mm suits many people, it is what it is, I wish it worked for me. It doesn't but I'm very pleased so far with 16-45mm, a very nice, inexpensive lens.
The gear is secondary to the composition and execution but we all have a view on what is acceptable in terms of IQ or not. My expectations of a zoom may be higher than some other people, I can live with that. I expected the 50-200mm to be the weaker of the two lenses based on what I have read, mine are the other way around. Still, 1 out of 2 ain't bad .
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
18-55mm kit, detail, k-mount, kit, lens, lot, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k-x lens , kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL , what 50mm f1.4 can do over kit lens? crossing Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 01-15-2010 03:23 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR rustynail925 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-08-2010 02:06 PM
18-55mm WR compared to the original 18-55mm kit lens HogRider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-26-2009 12:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top