[Cambo]

16-45 for $700? that's highway robbery. which knock-off store sell it that much? basically, an idiot would buy such overpriced lens. obviously, you haven't been really around checking lenses. go to londondrugs, kerrisdale cameras, gastown photo, Leo's, Broadway Cameras and Dunne and Rundle and you will see how affordable a new 16-45 lens is. it seems you haven't been out that much. are you living under a boulder or something?

and why it wouldn't be fair if you get a used one for cheaper price? using your wits is not a crime, DUH !

I think you just did my a favor by using my photo as a sample which is not even from a kitlens. but anyway, I must have liitle or no credibility now, right?

wait, dont go just yet, I want to provide the link where you get that great image from the so-called kitlens taken by someone...ehem....

here it is >>>>>>> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/72254-vancouver-main-area.html

take note this is only to be used for kit lens reference and purpose only.

Ok, I'll stop posting in this thread since I already lost my credibility. kit lens (55-300) rock my world.

lesson to be learned from this, always check where you get your examples from.
seems like someone else is clueless with a lot of things. how sad.

The lens was $699.00 when new...I remember the DAY it was announced...

Pentax DA 16-45 mm Digital Lens: Digital Photography Review

It was a lens I made a special trip into the store to try out, and was disheartened at the price. IF YOU RECALL, OUR CURRENCY WAS FLUCTUATING WILDLY AT THE TIME WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR THE PRICE DISCREPANCY.

And if you look a little further:

http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/product_detail.asp?T1=PTX+21507

The retail price is still $599.00....

And the 55-300 is NOT a kit lens...

Yes I could see you really questioning the value of that lens at 700 dollars. The addage "you get what you pay for" is true of all lenses, but is most apparent with the least expensive gear, IMHO. The it is incredibly useful, but limiting compared to the much more expensive glass out there. The biggest problem is that the kit needs to be really stopped down to be nice and sharp, which completely eliminates the possibility of low DOF shots, or low light photography without a flash. It's worth owning one, even if it's just considered as disposable. I'd rather lose the kit lens to the elements or a drunk partygoer over any other lens... even the vintage stuff (which can be harder to track down in good condition).

Unfortunately in Canada you really need to hunt for good Pentax prices. I spent a long time thinking I could not afford any Pentax stuff new, because of the prices at the local stores (Vistek and Henry's).

After I was pointed in the right direction, though, I found that there were, in fact, sane sales people in this country. If it wasn't for the internet, we'd be screwed .

Happy new year . Two kit lens shots:
Attachment 79414

They've come down somewhat since they were introduced, mainly because our currency is way up, and also because they are now made in Vietnam. It's STILL 3-4 times the price of the kit lens, which remains one of the greatest bargains in the history of photography...

Let's see if I can sum-up some of the points here, and maybe add some.

* The DA18-55 ain't as nice optically as lenses costing much more. (I got mine used for US$50).
* Those optical shortcomings can be fixed in PP by those who want and know how to do PP.
* The DA18-55 is much used by people buying their first dSLR who don't know how to use it.
* The DA18-55 is rated high by PopPhoto and is considered better than CaNikon equivalents.
* Pentax has made some crap kit lenses (think A35-80) but the DA18-55 ain't in that league.
* The DA18-55 is used by some professionals to earn a living, and by amateurs who don't.
* The kit.lens gallery here is full of brilliant pictures that kit.lens detractors ignore.
* Large numbers of Pentax dSLR buyers will never use anything BUT a kit.lens.
* Newbie dissatisfaction with the kit.lens helps drive sales of expensive 'upgrades'.

I'll admit that I don't use my DA18-55 as a primary work lens -- to me, the DA18-250 is basic, and all others are specialty lenses. The DA18-55's specialty is as something upon which to hang various filters, optical strap-ons (wide-tele-macro-etc), and other odd stuff -- so it's a convenient test-bed for me.

Let's flog that horse's corpse a bit more, eh?

No kidding. And I agree with all your points. The rest is just crazy.

I can understand some variations in samples, but not enough to cause the HUGE discrepancy in image making. It's down to operator error, I'm afraid, and someone who wants to blame the equipment.

The only reason I'd sell mine is to get the two weatherproof ones.

Cameron

---

Last edited by Cambo; 01-02-2011 at 02:21 PM.

[RioRico]

I can understand some variations in samples, but not enough to cause the HUGE discrepancy in image making. It's down to operator error, I'm afraid, and someone who wants to blame the equipment.

I forgot to mention another point: SOMEBODY out there likes the DA18-55, 'cause those that get listed on eBay, sell. OK, Newbie Newt gets a Kr kit, gets infected with the KIT.LENS.SUCKS meme, upgrades to the tune of several hundred bucks / euros / pounds / kilo-yen / whatever, flogs their discard on eBay... and it sells, to somebody who understands its value. The marketplace works. Imagine that...

The only reason I'd sell mine is to get the two weatherproof ones.

And a WR is probably the only other DA lens I would buy (ever hopeful of FF); and a DA18-55 WR will probably fall into my budget range before too long; and we'll all live happily ever after. Actually, I just missed getting one back when one of the major sellers had them on special for US$100. That was what prompted me to start selling my unused glass, to buy more and better lenses. That's why I'm now a lens trader.

[abacus07]

This topic is funny. The expectations out of a kit lens are completely unreasonable. It is what it is. A very usable lens that you can buy for practically nothing. I'll keep mine just because I won't be investing in a comparable upgrade and there will be times that the AF and zoom range will come in handy.

[tibbitts]

Was the lens or camera mount broken? No lens should have wobbly elements. The construction of the "L" plastic kit doesn't seem any different to me than the metal verion I or II except for the obvious features they feel the same.

I think this is referring to the lens barrel wobbling, particularly when extended to maximum length. My 18-55 (original flavor) doesn't wobble as much as my 16-45 (which extends much farther physically), but they both wobble. Should they? Probably not, but they do, as does my 50-200. My old Pentax F 100-300 doesn't wobble much, but it has internal zoom. Generally, my Canon zoom and fixed lenses don't wobble, my Sigma 10-20 doesn't wobble (although those have other quality control issues), and my SMC Takumar fixed lenses didn't wobble. Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not, but it isn't confidence inspiring.

Paul

[Pentaxor]

PLEASE, show me where you can buy a 16-45 for under $150 US.

check your local craigslist or the marketplace. the point is, the 16-45 is not expensive and would cost you a leg. if it's as expensive as the Tamron 17-50, there is no point of buying it, right?

[ManixZero]

I replaced my original kit lens with an FA 28-70 f4 AL and a Tamron 10-24mm.

An image from the FA


But when I bought my K7 I got WR kit lens and I love it!



Kit lenses are much maligned but Pentax have a little gem

MZ

[conradj]

I can understand some variations in samples, but not enough to cause the HUGE discrepancy in image making. It's down to operator error, I'm afraid, and someone who wants to blame the equipment.
Cameron

That's actually not true. i went through 2 bad examples of the 18-55WR before getting my current one, and i can say that what i have now is just so much better than the first sample i got that they're like completely different lens models.

Of course, i was really trying the patience of the store guys that third time and wouldn't have gotten another exchange if i wasn't able to demonstrate that the second one was mechanically faulty. The focus ring felt like i was grinding it in sand when i turned it.

i probably still haven't got a sample that's as good as it can be, but it's quite a nice lens and even wide open it's sharp in the center. Stopped down to f11 it's very nice except at the edges where it's still a bit iffy, just a picky little tiny bit.

[Pentaxor]

The lens was $699.00 when new...I remember the DAY it was announced...

Pentax DA 16-45 mm Digital Lens: Digital Photography Review

It was a lens I made a special trip into the store to try out, and was disheartened at the price. IF YOU RECALL, OUR CURRENCY WAS FLUCTUATING WILDLY AT THE TIME WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR THE PRICE DISCREPANCY.

And if you look a little further:

PentaxWebstore smcP DA 16-45 f4 ED AL

The retail price is still $599.00....

And the 55-300 is NOT a kit lens...



They've come down somewhat since they were introduced, mainly because our currency is way up. It's STILL 3-4 times the price of the kit lens, which remains one of the greatest bargains in the history of photography...



No kidding. And I agree with all your points. The rest is just crazy.

I can understand some variations in samples, but not enough to cause the HUGE discrepancy in image making. It's down to operator error, I'm afraid, and someone who wants to blame the equipment.

The only reason I'd sell mine is to get the two weatherproof ones.

Cameron

I'm quite confused about your price references since you are quoting what were you saying as a past price of the DA16-45, yet referencing the current price of the DA*16-50 which is at $1,200 CAD, and defeating the purpose of your argument. during the last 2 years, the DA*16-50 was quoted at $650. I know this because I was planning to get one before the craziness started around March/April of 2009. Jack Simpson even gave a heads-up of the impending price hike and gave some quote on the prices. but I just came too late but no regrets. so I can't seem to fathom how a 16-45 would be as expensive or a bit more expensive than the DA*16-50. I dunno where you got your quotation from, but I do know I got mine from Londondrugs. honestly, what you are saying regarding the supposed 16-45 price doesn't even make sense even during that time.

anyway, what's stopping you from buying cheaper Pentax lenses across the border? if prices are too high here, you have the option to get one from the home of the brave.

anyway, I'm aware that the 55-300 is not a kitlens, but one of the samples that you used as an example of great shots coming from a kit lens did not really came from a kitlens but from the 55-300. so why are you using my photo as a reference for what a kit lens can do when the photo did not even came from a kitlens? aside from making a false reference, you accused me of having no credibility? isn't that insulting?

I assure you that I'm not a person who blames an equipment for it's shortcomings but one who states what it lacks. if one lens has a certain degree of a distortion, would you blame the photographer for the distortion? or is it because the lens has that level of distortion? same for the other parameters. how about MTF or lpmm? can you blame that to the photographer as well? you see where getting at? this is not just a matter of taste nor preference but actual numbers and can be evidently seen on the images. otherwise we wont see any differences on the compared images if every lens are the same. as far as other people post-processing images, is post-processing a lens or optical characteristic?

[Internetpilot]

To any of you who immediately go with the "provide samples of bad photos" (who saves bad digital photos?) or "improve your skill and you'll be able to use any lens" (if that were true we could all use homemade pinhole cameras and get superior shots), you are no better than someone who just posts, "the kit lens sucks."

Many of us, most of which have decent or better photography skills, have clearly stated why we aren't bonkers for the short kit lens. It's all opinion. There's no reason to attack or criticize someone's skills over a sub-$100 lens quality. And frankly, it just makes you look like a zealot who will defend anything and everything Pentax.

Oh, and happy new year to those who celebrate it at this time of year! May all your lenses (even the crummy kit ones - haha) be everything you want them to be in 2011!

[elg]

I have K-x, and so I have DAL version of 18-55mm kit lens.
Its performance seems OK, but nothing spectacular. Photos look sharp in the centre, but the corners are noticeably softer (Note that I mostly shot at its extremes, i.e. 18mm and 55mm, so these may be where lens performance is lacking).

In comparison to kit lens Sigma 28-135mm IF lens is heavier and bigger, but still compact enough. Obviously it has longer reach, but its wide end is not that wide (28mm vs 18mm) It was inexpensive to buy (Where I live its price was between 18-55 DAL and 18-55 WR prices). It is better made (metal lens mount, IF, distance scale) than DAL kit lens. Its distortion is similar to the kit lens. It focuses slower (because it is heavier). The photos taken with it seem to be sharper than photos taken with DAL kit lens at the same focal lengths and apertures (slightly sharper in the centre, and more noticeably in the corners). I do not know why - because it is better optically, or because it focuses better.

It looks like QC and sample variation is really an issue with Pentax glass. Based on other posts I concluded that I have not-so-good copy of the kit lens.

The other thing to mention about 18-55mm DAL (and this is another thing where Pentax made savings on this lens) is that it was mentioned in one post of the Rice High blog, that DAL version of the 18-55mm lens cannot be adjusted to the camera (Somebody dis-assembled the lens and found out that it lacks things needed for such adjustment).

[Clarkey]

To any of you who immediately go with the "provide samples of bad photos" (who saves bad digital photos?) or "improve your skill and you'll be able to use any lens" (if that were true we could all use homemade pinhole cameras and get superior shots), you are no better than someone who just posts, "the kit lens sucks."

Snip.....

Happy New Year (or day after New Years day).

The OP indicated his lens wasn't great. There is variation in kit lens quality. Post samples, and we can see if they (based on our experience) as softer than we have experienced, or whether the camera settings might need a tweak. I disagree with your statement above for that reason. Personally, I am here to provide helpful advice or comment if I can.

However if the OP was flaming (and the OP hasn't really contributed much more to this thread at this point), then they have acheived their goal of winding people up.

[RolloR]

Try to get the kit lens in proper focus, you'll realize how much detail it can produce at any focal length and aperture.

I will not argue about its contrast being inferior to other lenses, but contrast adjustment is the most elementary post-processing task that everybody does, along with cropping and brightness adjustment.

What sucks about the kit lens is it only opens up to f5.6 at around 50mm.

[GeneV]

I think we forget the rarified air that we occupy as DSLR enthusiasts. The product we get from the kit lens is so far beyond that with which 95% of the world is happy that it is easy to lose our perspective. I recently snapped this one a F7.1 1/500 sec. in Barcelona. Frankly, I think the 1/500 is as important as anything else in getting the appearance of sharpness.

[Pentaxor]

Try to get the kit lens in proper focus, you'll realize how much detail it can produce at any focal length and aperture.

I will not argue about its contrast being inferior to other lenses, but contrast adjustment is the most elementary post-processing task that everybody does, along with cropping and brightness adjustment.

What sucks about the kit lens is it only opens up to f5.6 at around 50mm.

Happy New Year.

I did some personal 50mm shoot-out before pitting the 18-55 kit at f5.6 against the 55-300, 50/f2, 50/1.7, and 55/1.8. it is not only the contrast which I found that lacks with the kitlens but also inferior sharpness. as far as detail i concerned, the kitlens I had struggled with detail as I moved further away or focus to infinity.

it's not that people are shooting at the 18-55 kit lens but rather stating that it can't perform miracles or do better than the higher end zooms or even beats macro quality images. otherwise, other than aperture speed and constant aperture, what is the sense of upgrading lenses if IQ is all the same? besides, who wouldn't love to have such a $150 lens which such a great IQ? the thing is, the 18-55 isn't just that. the $20 M50/2 even trounces it at that focal length.

I don't believe that the 18-55 is plagued with a substantial number of sample variations. the 18-55 at 18mm will always have a high-degree of distortion. the 18-55 is known to be strong in the center. it is not as contrasty as other higher end zooms and has mediocre detail rendering that other high end zoom possess. sharpness and detail suffers a lot at the longer end of the zoom. it is well mentioned that the 18-55 at 50-55 is soft. the 18-55 is strongest at 35mm.

I don't mind the 18-55's slow variable speed, but rather not satisfied by it's IQ rendering.

[Pentaxor]

I think we forget the rarified air that we occupy as DSLR enthusiasts. The product we get from the kit lens is so far beyond that with which 95% of the world is happy that it is easy to lose our perspective. I recently snapped this one a F7.1 1/500 sec. in Barcelona. Frankly, I think the 1/500 is as important as anything else in getting the appearance of sharpness.

you should have tried a 12-24 on this shot as well.