[papillon_65]

Why debate anything? who cares?

[Ash]

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.

Thanks for your opinion, but there are also plenty of examples where the kit lens produces sharp results at 100% on a 14Mp camera. PP skills are no substitute for sharp images, perhaps at screen resolution but not much else. Have a look through the kit lens threads for evidence of this and please avoid the misleading pessimism.

[papillon_65]

Thanks for your opinion, but there are also plenty of examples where the kit lens produces sharp results at 100% on a 14Mp camera. PP skills are no substitute for sharp images, perhaps at screen resolution but not much else. Have a look through the kit lens threads for evidence of this and please avoid the misleading pessimism.

I already did, and images posted at the size that are on there don't really prove anything in relation to sharpness, that's my point. Some are sharp, but many are not, that is clearly evident. Of course "sharpness" is a subjective term when viewing images. One persons "sharp" is another persons "soft". I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic. As I said before the kit lens is what it is, you are either happy with it or not. What doesn't help is overly enthusiastic praise for a mediocre lens at best IMHO. For those that are happy with it then I am happy for them but lets not make this lens out to be something it isn't.
The wealth of contradicting views on it only substantiate what I have said. You can put that down to copy variation for sure, but that in itself means that it is not necessarily a lens to recommend.
My personal experience of both the kit lenses leads to me believe that the 50-200mm is the much better of the two. That being said, I won't be upset if someone comes on here and tells me they think it's poor. I can't argue, that's their experience and personal opinion of it and that's fair enough. I accept that you think the 18-55mm is better than I obviously do, that's fine, but don't argue with me because my experience and view is different. Clearly you won't change my view and I'm not trying to change anyone else's view, just telling it as I see it. I use three different brands of camera with many different lenses of varying quality, I'm not going to praise a lens if I think it's not so good, regardless of brand.
I always try to be objective about my gear, so I tell it as I see it, that's all there is to it really. I really wish it was better for me not the other way around.

[stevebrot]

Butterfly guy/girl (papillon)...

I use the 18-55 and am generally happy with the results and have even gotten some decent images with it. I also own several lenses that are distinctly superior to the 18-55. All are primes. You are absolutely correct about the highly regarded DA 16-45, but here in the U.S., it is not and has never been price competitive to the 18-55 kit. You are also correct about the DA 55-200, but it does not have the disadvantage of having to perform at the wide end. Long is easier than wide.

A few general comments:

• Most soft images, regardless of lens used are due to missed focus and or camera motion. When you see poor images posted from a particular lens, consider the source. Excellence in sharpness generally comes with experience and expertise.
• The 18-55 is a standout among its peers (other currently available APS kit lenses). Anybody doubting that should spend a day shooting with the Canon version or attempt manual focus with the Nikon version.
• The 18-55 is not imbued with magical powers, nor has it been sprinkled with pixie dust. It is simply a generally capable optic with a usable zoom range and decent build at an very affordable price point.
• The 18-55 is not fast.
• The 18-55 is not a bokeh queen
• the 18-55 has distortion at the wide end (duh!) similar to most wide-normal zooms
• The 18-55 is not particularly sharp at 55mm
• The 18-55 is not sharp corner-to-corner at the wide end similar to most wide-normal zooms
• The 18-55 is not the DA* 16-50/2.8 (duh!)
• It is possible and easy to make dull, unsharp, and unimpressive photos with any lens regardless of the dose of pixie dust and/or price. I know.

Steve

BTW...I too am not particularly impressed with some posted examples that have are way over-sharpened to the point of obvious artifact and have had the contrast bumped to high heavens in PP. Pulleeeeze, people!

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 01-06-2011 at 08:32 AM.

[papillon_65]

SteveBrot guy/girl - see comments below

Butterfly guy/girl (papillon)...

I use the 18-55 and am generally happy with the results and have even gotten some decent images with it. I also own several lenses that are distinctly superior to the 18-55. All are primes. You are absolutely correct about the highly regarded DA 16-45, but here in the U.S., it is not and has never been price competitive to the 18-55 kit. You are also correct about the DA 55-200, but it does not have the disadvantage of having to perform at the wide end. Long is easier than wide.

A few general comments:

• Most soft images, regardless of lens used are due to missed focus and or camera motion. When you see poor images posted from a particular lens, consider the source. Excellence in sharpness generally comes with experience and expertise.
  
  A subjective comment if ever there was one lol.
• The 18-55 is a standout among its peers (other currently available APS kit lenses). Anybody doubting that should spend a day shooting with the Canon version or attempt manual focus with the Nikon version.
  
  Canon and Nikon aren't the only kids on the block, I have two kit lenses from separate manufacturers which are far superior.
  
• The 18-55 is not imbued with magical powers, nor has it been sprinkled with pixie dust. It is simply a generally capable optic with a usable zoom range and decent build at an very affordable price point.
  
  A cheap lens is no good if it is not usable, my two versions weren't of usable quality, for me. Therefore I have two expensive paperweights, I can't speak for anyone else's lenses
• The 18-55 is not fast.
  I never expected it to be but usable below F8 is not too much to ask.
  
• The 18-55 is not a bokeh queen
  
  I never expected it to be.
  
• the 18-55 has distortion at the wide end (duh!) similar to most wide-normal zooms
  
  That's the least of it's problems.
  
• The 18-55 is not particularly sharp at 55mm
  
  Or any focal length apart from 35mm at F8 IME.
  
• It is possible and easy to make dull, unsharp, and unimpressive photos with any lens regardless of the dose of pixie dust and/or price. I know.
  
  But it's not easy to make sharp, clear images at larger sizes with an unacceptably soft lens.

Steve

People seem to be taking this all rather personally, it's a lens, mine are not good, no big deal. Is it so unacceptable to people that some of us find this lens poor?

Tony

[unixrevolution]

It's been my experience that the 18-55 is a very, VERY good lens. It isn't even really a Kit lens...it has the same optical quality and construction as other lenses in the DA lens line. It's just the DA lens they chose to include with their cameras.

I don't really get the obsession with super-fine ultra-detail in tiny bits of the image, also. Who's going to notice, or care, that the pine needles are or aren't ultra-sharp?

Besides equipment junkies?

[Pentaxor]

SteveBrot guy/girl - see comments below



People seem to be taking this all rather personally, it's a lens, mine are not good, no big deal. Is it so unacceptable to people that some of us find this lens poor?

Tony

let's make it simple.

how would you order/rank the ff lenses in terms of optical quality; 16-50,16-45,17-50 tammy, 17-50 Sigma, and 18-55 kit lens?

1.> ?
2.> ?
3.> ?
4.> ?
5.> ?


or let's say if money isn't an issue, which lens would you buy based on optical quality?

still not clear enough?

now, considering that the kitlens is given much praised and popular, there shouldn't be any problem taking the top spot if it's equally perform as good as the others. it would be travesty if it's not. right?

[elg]

I think the DA 18-55mm MKII was one of the best kit lenses around. For entry level, that is.
This is the past now.

Current all plastic DAL 18-55mm is just an average lens when compared to the offerings of other manufacturers. Olympus kit lens is decent optically, so is the new Nikkor 18-55 VR. I do not know about Canon offerings. So what's so good about the Pentax kit lens in this background? Note, that not everyone uses manual focusing too much.

If we start talking about the weather sealing, then lets not forget that 18-55 WR is available as a kit lens with the more expensive Pentax bodies only. At the same time Nikon equivalent bodies (D90, D7000) come with a kit lenses of different category (18-70mm, 18-105mm VR), to which 18-55mm WR cannot be really compared as it is too short and it does not have any other serious advantage except weather sealing, while Nikkor 18-70mm lens, for example, has longer focal length interval, is both brighter and faster to focus (SWM motor).

The better equivalent Pentax kit would be the new 18-135mm, but it is too expensive at the moment.

[papillon_65]

let's make it simple.

how would you order/rank the ff lenses in terms of optical quality; 16-50,16-45,17-50 tammy, 17-50 Sigma, and 18-55 kit lens?

1.> ?
2.> ?
3.> ?
4.> ?
5.> ?


or let's say if money isn't an issue, which lens would you buy based on optical quality?

still not clear enough?

now, considering that the kitlens is given much praised and popular, there shouldn't be any problem taking the top spot if it's equally perform as good as the others. it would be travesty if it's not. right?

Let me elaborate then as we are talking kit lenses. I will list all the kit lenses I've ever owned and grade them out of ten to account for build and optical quality against cost. I'll then explain what my thoughts on the 18-55mm, both my copies.

Zuiko 14-45mm - 7/10
Zuiko 40-150mm mk1 - 9/10
Zuiko 40-150mm mk2 - 9/10
Zuiko 14-42mm - 8/10
M.zuiko 14-42mm - 8/10
Panasonic 14-45mm - 9/10
Pentax 50-200mm - 7/10

18-55mm DAL - 4/10

Liked:

Build quality ok
Good CA control
Good close focusing ability.
Lightweight
Distortion - acceptable
Colour and contrast - variable but acceptable
35mm F8 - acceptable

Disliked

Unusable wide open
Unusable at 55mm
Variable performance through out the range but generally not even remotely sharp until F8, even then below par.
Unacceptable softness through out the range even when stopping down.

18-55mm WR - 5/10

Liked:

Build quality very good
Good close focusing ability
Good CA control
Lightweight
Distortion - acceptable
Colour and contrast - variable but acceptable
35mm F8 - acceptable

Disliked:

Unusable wide open
Unusable at 55mm
Variable performance through out the range but generally not even remotely sharp until F8, even then below par.
Unacceptable softness through out the range even when stopping down.

So why is it different from the previous kit lenses I have used? Firstly I live in a country were the light can be poor (such as today). Being forced to go to F8 and beyond is a problem on dull days. This forces the ISO upwards and degrades IQ even further.
A zoom which is unusable at certain focal lengths is not a usable zoom IMHO.
The previous kit lenses I have listed were all acceptably sharp at F5.6, some at all focal lengths. They were all usable at both extremes of their range.
The Zuiko 40-150mm (both versions) are excellent as is the Panasonic 14-45mm and Zuiko 14-42mm. You can use these lenses comfortably for landscape shooting. They render detail very well. The m.zuiko 14-42mm can be soft on the edges but is very sharp centrally, it's probably the weakest of the bunch but still plenty sharp.
Both my versions of the 18-55mm are hopeless for landscape shooting. Shooting large objects in close proximity they are not so bad but this is extremely limiting.
The 50-200mm DAL can be sharp at 5.6, both near and far, it is acceptable to me.
I am not some newbie college kid with his first DSLR, I've been using DSLR's for years.

Now, we come to the value part. All the kit lenses I have listed are budget kit lenses, none of them are expensive when bought with a camera. The Panasonic 14-45mm is now highly sought after on it's own so it can be more expensive when sold on ebay etc.
Zuiko 14-42mm lenses are not much more than the 18-55 DAL but are a significantly better performers, being sharp at F3.5 and all the way through, wide open. It does suffer from some red CA and distortion at the wide end but this is easily dealt with.

So what do I conclude from all this? The 18-55mm is the worst kit lens I have ever used, in fact the worst lens I have ever used on a DSLR. That is to say, the two copies I currently own. I cannot speak for anybody else or any other copies. I'm certainly not going to buy a third in the hope I get a better copy. I've bought a 16-45mm and am very pleased with it.

If you are happy with yours, good luck to you, I have no problem with that. I know what a good and bad lens performs like. I also know about copy variation, that's why I tried a second copy of this lens. Maybe I am unlucky, who knows?
If this is unpalatable to some people I can't help that, I see what I see. I've done extensive testing with both lenses at different apertures and focal lengths.
To those that say it's only a cheap kit lens, I'd ask you, would you buy any product and consider it good value if it didn't do what it is was supposed to? Would you consider that good value? I personally don't. I don't think I can add anything more that really.
If I'm in the minority, so be it, but I'd wager I've got as much, if not more experience of different DSLR's and lenses as the majority on this forum. It doesn't necessarily make me an expert, but it does make my opinion valid.

[papillon_65]

I think the DA 18-55mm MKII was one of the best kit lenses around. For entry level, that is.
This is the past now.

Current all plastic DAL 18-55mm is just an average lens when compared to the offerings of other manufacturers. Olympus kit lens is decent optically, so is the new Nikkor 18-55 VR. I do not know about Canon offerings. So what's so good about the Pentax kit lens in this background? Note, that not everyone uses manual focusing too much.

If we start talking about the weather sealing, then lets not forget that 18-55 WR is available as a kit lens with the more expensive Pentax bodies only. At the same time Nikon equivalent bodies (D90, D7000) come with a kit lenses of different category (18-70mm, 18-105mm VR), to which 18-55mm WR cannot be really compared as it is too short and it does not have any other serious advantage except weather sealing, while Nikkor 18-70mm lens, for example, has longer focal length interval, is both brighter and faster to focus (SWM motor).

The better equivalent Pentax kit would be the new 18-135mm, but it is too expensive at the moment.

I have no doubt it would be better than previous Nikon and Canon offerings. I remember seeing some shots from a Canon kit lens ( I forget which one ) but it had so much red CA present I thought I was looking at a 3d image without the glasses.
I think the 18-55mm lens needs a refresh or better quality control. I have no doubt there must be better copies than my two because I cannot believe that people would rave about a lens that performs like these two do. I must have been luckier with the 50-200mm because this lens performs up to the standard I would expect.

[Jewelltrail]

Accompanying the Kit supporters, inevitably if not initially, is this perennial echo: "It is better than Canon & Nikon offerings." So what??? That does nothing to make it any more appealing to me.

I do not like the food Mcdonalds & Burger King offers. Now if a Wendys frequenter comes up to me, selling the food there with the repetitive chant, "but it is better than Mcdonalds & Burger King," this is of no help to me either............ because I do not like that kind of food--period!

Papillon_65: If you are happy with yours, good luck to you, I have no problem with that. I know what a good and bad lens performs like. I also know about copy variation, that's why I tried a second copy of this lens. Maybe I am unlucky, who knows?
If this is unpalatable to some people I can't help that, I see what I see. I've done extensive testing with both lenses at different apertures and focal lengths.
To those that say it's only a cheap kit lens, I'd ask you, would you buy any product and consider it good value if it didn't do what it is was supposed to? Would you consider that good value? I personally don't. I don't think I can add anything more that really.
If I'm in the minority, so be it, but I'd wager I've got as much, if not more experience of different DSLR's and lenses as the majority on this forum. It doesn't necessarily make me an expert, but it does make my opinion valid.

BINGO!

[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!!!

[Cambo]

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.

So let's see some of the pictures that these awful lenses ruined... and let's see some great pictures taken by the other lenses you mentioned... And what 'better' glass do you have? What's your experience? This poster has 0 (zero; none; a complete absence thereof) gallery images, so how do we know that they have any credibilty whatsoever?

Tick, tick, tick...waiting....

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 own a whole smate of FA* glass, have done a LOT of professional shooting of all types, live, in the studio, covers, etc., and the 18-55 II is 95% as good as my FA* 28-70 f2.8, one of the best zooms ever produced by anyone. A good 75% of the time, I just take my two little kit zooms out...they are fabulous...

You've got some beautiful images in your gallery, so you have more credibility than two of these im-posters, but let's see some of your shots that have been 'ruined' by the 18-55?

I think the DA 18-55mm MKII was one of the best kit lenses around. For entry level, that is.

This is the past now.

Current all plastic DAL 18-55mm is just an average lens when compared to the offerings of other manufacturers. Olympus kit lens is decent optically, so is the new Nikkor 18-55 VR. I do not know about Canon offerings. So what's so good about the Pentax kit lens in this background? Note, that not everyone uses manual focusing too much.

If we start talking about the weather sealing, then lets not forget that 18-55 WR is available as a kit lens with the more expensive Pentax bodies only. At the same time Nikon equivalent bodies (D90, D7000) come with a kit lenses of different category (18-70mm, 18-105mm VR), to which 18-55mm WR cannot be really compared as it is too short and it does not have any other serious advantage except weather sealing, while Nikkor 18-70mm lens, for example, has longer focal length interval, is both brighter and faster to focus (SWM motor).

The better equivalent Pentax kit would be the new 18-135mm, but it is too expensive at the moment.

and has SEVERE distortion at both ends. Great for travel if you can only taker 1 lens, but holy cow does it ever distort.

Let me elaborate then as we are talking kit lenses. I will list all the kit lenses I've ever owned and grade them out of ten to account for build and optical quality against cost. I'll then explain what my thoughts on the 18-55mm, both my copies.

Zuiko 14-45mm - 7/10
Zuiko 40-150mm mk1 - 9/10
Zuiko 40-150mm mk2 - 9/10
Zuiko 14-42mm - 8/10
M.zuiko 14-42mm - 8/10
Panasonic 14-45mm - 9/10
Pentax 50-200mm - 7/10

18-55mm DAL - 4/10

Liked:

Build quality ok
Good CA control
Good close focusing ability.
Lightweight
Distortion - acceptable
Colour and contrast - variable but acceptable
35mm F8 - acceptable

Disliked

Unusable wide open
Unusable at 55mm
Variable performance through out the range but generally not even remotely sharp until F8, even then below par.
Unacceptable softness through out the range even when stopping down.

18-55mm WR - 5/10

Liked:

Build quality very good
Good close focusing ability
Good CA control
Lightweight
Distortion - acceptable
Colour and contrast - variable but acceptable
35mm F8 - acceptable

Disliked:

Unusable wide open
Unusable at 55mm
Variable performance through out the range but generally not even remotely sharp until F8, even then below par.
Unacceptable softness through out the range even when stopping down.

So why is it different from the previous kit lenses I have used? Firstly I live in a country were the light can be poor (such as today). Being forced to go to F8 and beyond is a problem on dull days. This forces the ISO upwards and degrades IQ even further.
A zoom which is unusable at certain focal lengths is not a usable zoom IMHO.
The previous kit lenses I have listed were all acceptably sharp at F5.6, some at all focal lengths. They were all usable at both extremes of their range.
The Zuiko 40-150mm (both versions) are excellent as is the Panasonic 14-45mm and Zuiko 14-42mm. You can use these lenses comfortably for landscape shooting. They render detail very well. The m.zuiko 14-42mm can be soft on the edges but is very sharp centrally, it's probably the weakest of the bunch but still plenty sharp.
Both my versions of the 18-55mm are hopeless for landscape shooting. Shooting large objects in close proximity they are not so bad but this is extremely limiting.
The 50-200mm DAL can be sharp at 5.6, both near and far, it is acceptable to me.
I am not some newbie college kid with his first DSLR, I've been using DSLR's for years.

Now, we come to the value part. All the kit lenses I have listed are budget kit lenses, none of them are expensive when bought with a camera. The Panasonic 14-45mm is now highly sought after on it's own so it can be more expensive when sold on ebay etc.
Zuiko 14-42mm lenses are not much more than the 18-55 DAL but are a significantly better performers, being sharp at F3.5 and all the way through, wide open. It does suffer from some red CA and distortion at the wide end but this is easily dealt with.

So what do I conclude from all this? The 18-55mm is the worst kit lens I have ever used, in fact the worst lens I have ever used on a DSLR. That is to say, the two copies I currently own. I cannot speak for anybody else or any other copies. I'm certainly not going to buy a third in the hope I get a better copy. I've bought a 16-45mm and am very pleased with it.

If you are happy with yours, good luck to you, I have no problem with that. I know what a good and bad lens performs like. I also know about copy variation, that's why I tried a second copy of this lens. Maybe I am unlucky, who knows?
If this is unpalatable to some people I can't help that, I see what I see. I've done extensive testing with both lenses at different apertures and focal lengths.
To those that say it's only a cheap kit lens, I'd ask you, would you buy any product and consider it good value if it didn't do what it is was supposed to? Would you consider that good value? I personally don't. I don't think I can add anything more that really.
If I'm in the minority, so be it, but I'd wager I've got as much, if not more experience of different DSLR's and lenses as the majority on this forum. It doesn't necessarily make me an expert, but it does make my opinion valid.

I have no doubt it would be better than previous Nikon and Canon offerings. I remember seeing some shots from a Canon kit lens ( I forget which one ) but it had so much red CA present I thought I was looking at a 3d image without the glasses.
I think the 18-55mm lens needs a refresh or better quality control. I have no doubt there must be better copies than my two because I cannot believe that people would rave about a lens that performs like these two do. I must have been luckier with the 50-200mm because this lens performs up to the standard I would expect.

or your camera has a back-focus problem that you haven't calibrated out yet. And until we see some images, both great with your good lenses, and really bad with this 'bad' lens, you have zero credibility.

My credibility when discussing photo gear is in my gallery.

Sincerely,
Cameron

[Ash]

I already did, and images posted at the size that are on there don't really prove anything in relation to sharpness, that's my point. Some are sharp, but many are not, that is clearly evident. Of course "sharpness" is a subjective term when viewing images. One persons "sharp" is another persons "soft".
I always try to be objective about my gear, so I tell it as I see it, that's all there is to it really. I really wish it was better for me not the other way around.

Personal preferences and experiences will always taint our judgement on particular lenses, and the 18-55 has clearly done that in your case. You of course don't need convincing that the kit lens is of decent quality, but sharpness is certainly not subjective. MTF data is a reliable objective measure of resolution, and a couple of reputable tests have shown the kit lens producing very good IQ at 100%, verified by other reviews on the lens:

Pentax smc DA 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 AL II review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com
Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis (the Mk I, which supposed to be considerably less impressive than the Mk II or WR versions)
Pentax DA 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 AL Lens Review: 3. Test results: Digital Photography Review

Look at the figures for f/8:


Objectively this kit lens performs quite well *at f/5.6-8*. Pushing its capabilities (like shooting wide open at 18mm or 55mm) will quickly reveal its weakness and lead one to believe it's not worth shooting with at all in any circumstances. This is what I'm getting at - use it at f/8 and appreciate that this is its sweet spot and there will be less disappointment with it. Cheap or not, it performs well even compared to considerably more expensive lenses at f/8. The same could not be said for other kit lenses.

[papillon_65]

So let's see some of the pictures that these awful lenses ruined... and let's see some great pictures taken by the other lenses you mentioned... And what 'better' glass do you have? What's your experience? This poster has 0 (zero; none; a complete absence thereof) gallery images, so how do we know that they have any credibilty whatsoever?

Tick, tick, tick...waiting....

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




I own a whole smate of FA* glass, have done a LOT of professional shooting of all types, live, in the studio, covers, etc., and the 18-55 II is 95% as good as my FA* 28-70 f2.8, one of the best zooms ever produced by anyone. A good 75% of the time, I just take my two little kit zooms out...they are fabulous...

And that proves what exactly? that my two 18-55mm lenses are great? please get real.
You've got some beautiful images in your gallery, so you have more credibility than two of these im-posters, but let's see some of your shots that have been 'ruined' by the 18-55?



and has SEVERE distortion at both ends. Great for travel if you can only taker 1 lens, but holy cow does it ever distort.





or your camera has a back-focus problem that you haven't calibrated out yet. And until we see some images, both great with your good lenses, and really bad with this 'bad' lens, you have zero credibility.

I know what back focus is, front focus, de-centring, mis-focusing etc etc. Is your self esteem so tied up in this lens that you can't respect someone else's opinion? Do you seriously think I would waste my time criticising a lens that worked for me? I don't answer to you, you're entitled to your opinion but don't jump in here accusing me of lying are questioning my "credibility". You've got a link to my photostream, like I said, knock yourself out.

My credibility when discussing photo gear is in my gallery.

Sincerely,
Cameron