18-55mm kit lens. Nothing exciting.

UnknownVT · 01-02-2011, 08:16 PM

18-55mm Mk 1:

ISO200, f/6.3, 1/250, 43mm, +0.3EV
(EXIF should be attached - but PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)

kari · 01-03-2011, 03:54 AM

I must say I was disappointed with the image quality of the kit lens as well. There is nothing really bad about it, but the microcontrast just isn't there. Whilst there are some nice shots in this thread, they haven't really done anything to convince me of the supposed high IQ of the kit lens. I upgraded after about 6 months with the kit lens, got the 16-50 and the difference is so night and day, that now I can't see any use for the older lens. Maybe if it was WR.

**Ash** · 01-03-2011, 04:25 AM

And that's where I've come with the lens - from 18-55 to 16-45 to 28-75/12-24 to 16-50 and now back to 18-55 WR. Deciding to keep to primes and having a WR capability just in case, I went back to the 18-55 just for those f/8 and be there type of shots, which I'm sure it will do reasonably well with. Of course, I *love* the results from my 16-50, but I love those from my primes more.

papillon_65 · 01-05-2011, 01:32 PM

I am new to this forum and new to Pentax and maybe I can add a comment on this. I am not a newbie and own some very nice zooms and kit lenses in other brands. I think part of the problem is expectation for people joining Pentax. I had the same expectation after reading so many "18-55mm is the best kit lens out there" comments. I bought the K-x as a lightweight kit fully expecting good things from the 18-55mm. I have to say I was extremely disappointed with this lens. So much so that I bought the WR version in the hopes that this would be a better copy. The second copy was no better. The main issue I have with the lens is it's softness. It is soft to me at all focal lengths and the detail is just not there.
I gave up on using this lens and purchased the 16-45mm. The difference is night and day, the 16-45mm is far superior, and here in the UK, not a lot more expensive.
The kit lens is what it is, a cheap budget lens. If Pentax users eased up on the "best in class" rhetoric then I don't think there would be any debates such as this. In terms of kit lenses, the Zuiko 4/3's 14-42mm and Panasonic 14-45mm M4/3's kit lenses are far superior to this one.
The kit lens that is actually pretty good is the 50-200mm DAL, that is a lens that is sharp and usable for me.
Incidentally, many images posted to defend the 18-55mm only serve to highlight it's weakness, but like I said, it is what it is and if you are happy with it then that's fine as well.

Ira · 01-05-2011, 01:45 PM

Papillon:

Under what premise...what you read or heard...would make you think that the WR was any different?

eddie1960 · 01-05-2011, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by papillon_65

In terms of kit lenses, the Zuiko 4/3's 14-42mm and Panasonic 14-45mm M4/3's kit lenses are far superior to this one.
.

Big Plus one to this, My Zuiko is far better than my 18-55. the camera is even better than my ds in a lot of ways (e300) but the Oly just didn't do it for me no matter how much i tried to like it, I gave it to my wife and she never uses it, at some point it will get sold off and the proceeds put towards more lenses for the Pentax cameras, or towards another medium format camera

papillon_65 · 01-05-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Ira

Papillon:

Under what premise...what you read or heard...would make you think that the WR was any different?

I bought it in the hope that my first lens was just a poor copy, I know that optically they should be the same. If it had worked for me I would have a better copy with WR, unfortunately it didn't. I have no use for either now and will sell them.

northcoastgreg · 01-05-2011, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by papillon_65

Incidentally, many images posted to defend the 18-55mm only serve to highlight it's weakness

That's very true. It makes me suspect that some of the defenders of the kit lens have never used better glass and just don't understand what they're missing. Someone earlier post some nice squirrel shots taken by the kit lens. But those shots, as nice as they were, suffered from a distracting background and a less than optimally sharp squirrel; nor was the color rendition and contrast much to brag about. A sharper, faster lens with a narrower DOF, better contrast, and superior color rendition would have produced a significantly better photograph.

papillon_65 · 01-05-2011, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

That's very true. It makes me suspect that some of the defenders of the kit lens have never used better glass and just don't understand what they're missing. Someone earlier post some nice squirrel shots taken by the kit lens. But those shots, as nice as they were, suffered from a distracting background and a less than optimally sharp squirrel; nor was the color rendition and contrast much to brag about. A sharper, faster lens with a narrower DOF, better contrast, and superior color rendition would have produced a significantly better photograph.

I can live with lack of contrast and poorer colour rendition because they are all easily rectified in PP. The worst quality a lens can have (unless it's for portraits or similar), is a high degree of softness through it's range. For small prints this lens can suffice but that's it for me, over-sharpening in PP just destroys IQ. Displaying small images on the web to demonstrate it's sharpness is also pointless as well, you have to use a lens to really know whether it's any good or not.

Ira · 01-05-2011, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

That's very true. It makes me suspect that some of the defenders of the kit lens have never used better glass and just don't understand what they're missing.

Not true at all, as the lenses in my signature...and hundreds of others here...can attest to.

I think you're missing the wonderful work shown in The Kit Lens Club here, and the fact that "better" glass does not necessarily make for better pictures. That's where the skills come in, and it's a lot easier to criticize the lens for a bad a photo than criticize ourselves.

I just have problems finding fault with a lens that did this:

Or this...

Or this:

The proof is in the pudding, and if you want to go through all of the pages on that thread and discuss specific images, I would be happy to do that.

RioRico · 01-05-2011, 03:56 PM

Isn't it time to either close this thread, or start a separate KIT.LENS.DEBATE sub-forum? The DA18-55 (varied versions) will have its supporters, detractors, casual users, and questioners, and the debate will *never* be settled. Neither will the flame wars, er I mean debates over PP/RAW, street-shooting ethics and etiquette, the best possible digicam features, and whether BatBoy is real. This is Holy War territory, folks. Oh yeah, PCs are better than Macs.

Ira · 01-05-2011, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Oh yeah, PCs are better than Macs.

Well, you just lost all credibility right there.

**Ash** · 01-05-2011, 05:42 PM

Haha!
Let me pour more fuel on the fire just for fun:
15 reasons Macs are still better than Windows PCs
8 reasons why a Mac is better than a PC News - PC Advisor
10+1 Undeniable Reasons Why I Consider Mac Better Than PC
Why Mac is better than PC - Computer Buying Tips - Helium

But who cares about the debate? Go with the tools that get the job done for you the way you want!

This is not the same as the kit lens vs upgrade lens debate.
There are obvious situations the kit lens doesn't excel in, and we're trying to judge it for those situations. It's time to stop this. Again, consider the kit lens an 'f/8 and be there' lens. It does very well in this setting. Need more speed than f/5.6? The kit lens is not for you.

Pentaxor · 01-05-2011, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Haha!
Let me pour more fuel on the fire just for fun:
15 reasons Macs are still better than Windows PCs
8 reasons why a Mac is better than a PC News - PC Advisor
10+1 Undeniable Reasons Why I Consider Mac Better Than PC
Why Mac is better than PC - Computer Buying Tips - Helium

But who cares about the debate? Go with the tools that get the job done for you the way you want!

This is not the same as the kit lens vs upgrade lens debate.
There are obvious situations the kit lens doesn't excel in, and we're trying to judge it for those situations. It's time to stop this. Again, consider the kit lens an 'f/8 and be there' lens. It does very well in this setting. Need more speed than f/5.6? The kit lens is not for you.

true. and some should stop making excuses regarding lens variation. no matter which kitlens copy you have, it's no good at 18mm, much so at 55, especially if you are looking for that detailed sharpness and contrast that you are looking for.

you are right about the kitlens being an f8 lens and no argument about that.

if given the same scene and composition of the image using a kit lens and an upgrade, surely there would be noticeable differences especially with regards to the specifics of a lens' capability and thus one could say one lens is better than the other. otherwise, everyone would be happy using only a PS cam if compositional skill alone makes up for the equipment.

papillon_65 · 01-06-2011, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Ira

Not true at all, as the lenses in my signature...and hundreds of others here...can attest to.

I think you're missing the wonderful work shown in The Kit Lens Club here, and the fact that "better" glass does not necessarily make for better pictures. That's where the skills come in, and it's a lot easier to criticize the lens for a bad a photo than criticize ourselves.

I just have problems finding fault with a lens that did this:

Or this...

Or this...

Or this:

The proof is in the pudding, and if you want to go through all of the pages on that thread and discuss specific images, I would be happy to do that.

Any of those images posted at smaller sizes, and frequently heavily PP'ed, don't really prove anything but the Photographers abilities. Many of the images are soft, even at small sizes, and could just as easily be taken with a P&S, except they would be sharper.
For smaller image sizes posted on the net the 18-55mm should be fine, but that in itself doesn't make it a good lens really. For the price of the DAL I guess it's fine for those that are happy with it's performance, no argument there.

01-05-2011, 03:03 PM	#85
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by northcoastgreg That's very true. It makes me suspect that some of the defenders of the kit lens have never used better glass and just don't understand what they're missing. Not true at all, as the lenses in my signature...and hundreds of others here...can attest to. I think you're missing the wonderful work shown in The Kit Lens Club here, and the fact that "better" glass does not necessarily make for better pictures. That's where the skills come in, and it's a lot easier to criticize the lens for a bad a photo than criticize ourselves. I just have problems finding fault with a lens that did this: Or this... Or this... Or this: The proof is in the pudding, and if you want to go through all of the pages on that thread and discuss specific images, I would be happy to do that.

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

01-02-2011, 08:16 PM	#76
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	18-55mm Mk 1: ISO200, f/6.3, 1/250, 43mm, +0.3EV (EXIF should be attached - but PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)

01-03-2011, 03:54 AM	#77
kari Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 142	I must say I was disappointed with the image quality of the kit lens as well. There is nothing really bad about it, but the microcontrast just isn't there. Whilst there are some nice shots in this thread, they haven't really done anything to convince me of the supposed high IQ of the kit lens. I upgraded after about 6 months with the kit lens, got the 16-50 and the difference is so night and day, that now I can't see any use for the older lens. Maybe if it was WR.

01-03-2011, 04:25 AM	#78
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	And that's where I've come with the lens - from 18-55 to 16-45 to 28-75/12-24 to 16-50 and now back to 18-55 WR. Deciding to keep to primes and having a WR capability just in case, I went back to the 18-55 just for those f/8 and be there type of shots, which I'm sure it will do reasonably well with. Of course, I love the results from my 16-50, but I love those from my primes more.

01-05-2011, 01:32 PM	#79
papillon_65 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Land of the password Posts: 83	I am new to this forum and new to Pentax and maybe I can add a comment on this. I am not a newbie and own some very nice zooms and kit lenses in other brands. I think part of the problem is expectation for people joining Pentax. I had the same expectation after reading so many "18-55mm is the best kit lens out there" comments. I bought the K-x as a lightweight kit fully expecting good things from the 18-55mm. I have to say I was extremely disappointed with this lens. So much so that I bought the WR version in the hopes that this would be a better copy. The second copy was no better. The main issue I have with the lens is it's softness. It is soft to me at all focal lengths and the detail is just not there. I gave up on using this lens and purchased the 16-45mm. The difference is night and day, the 16-45mm is far superior, and here in the UK, not a lot more expensive. The kit lens is what it is, a cheap budget lens. If Pentax users eased up on the "best in class" rhetoric then I don't think there would be any debates such as this. In terms of kit lenses, the Zuiko 4/3's 14-42mm and Panasonic 14-45mm M4/3's kit lenses are far superior to this one. The kit lens that is actually pretty good is the 50-200mm DAL, that is a lens that is sharp and usable for me. Incidentally, many images posted to defend the 18-55mm only serve to highlight it's weakness, but like I said, it is what it is and if you are happy with it then that's fine as well.

01-05-2011, 01:45 PM	#80
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Papillon: Under what premise...what you read or heard...would make you think that the WR was any different?

01-05-2011, 01:50 PM	#81
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by papillon_65 In terms of kit lenses, the Zuiko 4/3's 14-42mm and Panasonic 14-45mm M4/3's kit lenses are far superior to this one. . Big Plus one to this, My Zuiko is far better than my 18-55. the camera is even better than my ds in a lot of ways (e300) but the Oly just didn't do it for me no matter how much i tried to like it, I gave it to my wife and she never uses it, at some point it will get sold off and the proceeds put towards more lenses for the Pentax cameras, or towards another medium format camera

01-05-2011, 02:11 PM	#82
papillon_65 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Land of the password Posts: 83	Originally posted by Ira Papillon: Under what premise...what you read or heard...would make you think that the WR was any different? I bought it in the hope that my first lens was just a poor copy, I know that optically they should be the same. If it had worked for me I would have a better copy with WR, unfortunately it didn't. I have no use for either now and will sell them.

01-05-2011, 02:34 PM	#83
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by papillon_65 Incidentally, many images posted to defend the 18-55mm only serve to highlight it's weakness That's very true. It makes me suspect that some of the defenders of the kit lens have never used better glass and just don't understand what they're missing. Someone earlier post some nice squirrel shots taken by the kit lens. But those shots, as nice as they were, suffered from a distracting background and a less than optimally sharp squirrel; nor was the color rendition and contrast much to brag about. A sharper, faster lens with a narrower DOF, better contrast, and superior color rendition would have produced a significantly better photograph.

01-05-2011, 02:46 PM	#84
papillon_65 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Land of the password Posts: 83	Originally posted by northcoastgreg That's very true. It makes me suspect that some of the defenders of the kit lens have never used better glass and just don't understand what they're missing. Someone earlier post some nice squirrel shots taken by the kit lens. But those shots, as nice as they were, suffered from a distracting background and a less than optimally sharp squirrel; nor was the color rendition and contrast much to brag about. A sharper, faster lens with a narrower DOF, better contrast, and superior color rendition would have produced a significantly better photograph. I can live with lack of contrast and poorer colour rendition because they are all easily rectified in PP. The worst quality a lens can have (unless it's for portraits or similar), is a high degree of softness through it's range. For small prints this lens can suffice but that's it for me, over-sharpening in PP just destroys IQ. Displaying small images on the web to demonstrate it's sharpness is also pointless as well, you have to use a lens to really know whether it's any good or not.

01-05-2011, 03:56 PM	#86
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Isn't it time to either close this thread, or start a separate KIT.LENS.DEBATE sub-forum? The DA18-55 (varied versions) will have its supporters, detractors, casual users, and questioners, and the debate will never be settled. Neither will the flame wars, er I mean debates over PP/RAW, street-shooting ethics and etiquette, the best possible digicam features, and whether BatBoy is real. This is Holy War territory, folks. Oh yeah, PCs are better than Macs.

01-05-2011, 04:50 PM	#87
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by RioRico Oh yeah, PCs are better than Macs. Well, you just lost all credibility right there.

01-05-2011, 05:42 PM	#88
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Haha! Let me pour more fuel on the fire just for fun: 15 reasons Macs are still better than Windows PCs 8 reasons why a Mac is better than a PC News - PC Advisor 10+1 Undeniable Reasons Why I Consider Mac Better Than PC Why Mac is better than PC - Computer Buying Tips - Helium But who cares about the debate? Go with the tools that get the job done for you the way you want! This is not the same as the kit lens vs upgrade lens debate. There are obvious situations the kit lens doesn't excel in, and we're trying to judge it for those situations. It's time to stop this. Again, consider the kit lens an 'f/8 and be there' lens. It does very well in this setting. Need more speed than f/5.6? The kit lens is not for you.

01-05-2011, 09:14 PM	#89
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Ash Haha! Let me pour more fuel on the fire just for fun: 15 reasons Macs are still better than Windows PCs 8 reasons why a Mac is better than a PC News - PC Advisor 10+1 Undeniable Reasons Why I Consider Mac Better Than PC Why Mac is better than PC - Computer Buying Tips - Helium But who cares about the debate? Go with the tools that get the job done for you the way you want! This is not the same as the kit lens vs upgrade lens debate. There are obvious situations the kit lens doesn't excel in, and we're trying to judge it for those situations. It's time to stop this. Again, consider the kit lens an 'f/8 and be there' lens. It does very well in this setting. Need more speed than f/5.6? The kit lens is not for you. true. and some should stop making excuses regarding lens variation. no matter which kitlens copy you have, it's no good at 18mm, much so at 55, especially if you are looking for that detailed sharpness and contrast that you are looking for. you are right about the kitlens being an f8 lens and no argument about that. if given the same scene and composition of the image using a kit lens and an upgrade, surely there would be noticeable differences especially with regards to the specifics of a lens' capability and thus one could say one lens is better than the other. otherwise, everyone would be happy using only a PS cam if compositional skill alone makes up for the equipment.

01-06-2011, 02:53 AM	#90
papillon_65 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Land of the password Posts: 83	Originally posted by Ira Not true at all, as the lenses in my signature...and hundreds of others here...can attest to. I think you're missing the wonderful work shown in The Kit Lens Club here, and the fact that "better" glass does not necessarily make for better pictures. That's where the skills come in, and it's a lot easier to criticize the lens for a bad a photo than criticize ourselves. I just have problems finding fault with a lens that did this: Or this... Or this... Or this: The proof is in the pudding, and if you want to go through all of the pages on that thread and discuss specific images, I would be happy to do that. Any of those images posted at smaller sizes, and frequently heavily PP'ed, don't really prove anything but the Photographers abilities. Many of the images are soft, even at small sizes, and could just as easily be taken with a P&S, except they would be sharper. For smaller image sizes posted on the net the 18-55mm should be fine, but that in itself doesn't make it a good lens really. For the price of the DAL I guess it's fine for those that are happy with it's performance, no argument there.