[unixrevolution]

This is a bigger mystery than the Bermuda Triangle.

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

I'd rather shoot with a Big Mac than eat a Kit Lens.

[paperbag846]

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.

It's more expensive than the 12-24 if you are going to think about usability, but you should also think about size. It's super small for a WA. It depends on how much you love wide angles.

My expectations of a zoom may be higher than some other people, I can live with that.

I don't really think anyone has been claiming that the kit lens is just as good as many other pentax lenses... or really, ANY others. Now I have the DA MKII which might bias me slightly because people are claiming that it is a better lens than the DAL. The 16-45 is designed to be a huge step up from the kit lens, which explains the price discrepancy... but in the end I think the fact is a good photographer can take a good picture with an iphone, and anyone can make the best lens look bad.

So is the kit lens amazing? No. But it's pretty capable for general photography. It's not great for bokeh, and has little DOF control, but that's no different from most kit lenses (maybe worst than the Zukio, but that's rather specific a criticism considering we are now talking about a whole different camera system with a different sensor size, with it's own set of limitations).

[Jewelltrail]

paperbag: It's not great for bokeh, and has little DOF control, but that's no different from most kit lenses (maybe worst than the Zukio, but that's rather specific a criticism considering we are now talking about a whole different camera system with a different sensor size, with it's own set of limitations).

The 4/3rds systems offer even less DOF control, relative to APC, due to their smaller sensors.

[papillon_65]

It's more expensive than the 12-24 if you are going to think about usability, but you should also think about size. It's super small for a WA. It depends on how much you love wide angles.

I like primes, that was part of the reason for buying a Pentax, but I'm not paying £600 for a 15mm F4 prime, no matter how good, maybe the price will drop in the future and then I might be interested again

I don't really think anyone has been claiming that the kit lens is just as good as many other pentax lenses... or really, ANY others. Now I have the DA MKII which might bias me slightly because people are claiming that it is a better lens than the DAL. The 16-45 is designed to be a huge step up from the kit lens, which explains the price discrepancy... but in the end I think the fact is a good photographer can take a good picture with an iphone, and anyone can make the best lens look bad.

So is the kit lens amazing? No. But it's pretty capable for general photography. It's not great for bokeh, and has little DOF control, but that's no different from most kit lenses (maybe worst than the Zukio, but that's rather specific a criticism considering we are now talking about a whole different camera system with a different sensor size, with it's own set of limitations).

I think I've explained myself to death on the 18-55mm, many are happy with it, I'm not, that's all there is to it really.

[papillon_65]

The 4/3rds systems offer even less DOF control, relative to APC, due to their smaller sensors.

This is true, but 1 stop really isn't a big deal, in some situations in works in your favour, some it doesn't.

[paperbag846]

The 4/3rds systems offer even less DOF control, relative to APC, due to their smaller sensors.

Yes and that makes the comparison rather dubious. I like the compromise of ASP-C, but I'm not so sure if I would want to go smaller.

I think the 4/3rds system is wonderful if you like sharp, large DOF shots. However the larger sensor sizes allow for more creativity, which I quite value. I really don't think the kit lens is as bad as people make it out to be... it is very easy to blame a cheap lens for a bad shots, though .

Now I really noticed a difference when I bought my first prime, the A 28mm f2.8, in comparison to the kit lens... but the quality of the photographs have much more to do with me than the lens, and after a year of not touching the thing, I'm beginning to find that many of the things I was unhappy about with the kit lens was actually due to me.

The whole DOF limitation of the kit lens is easily remedied with a rather inexpensive 50mm f1.7, anyways, or one of the Tamron 2.8 zooms. Considering this is the largest fault of the kit lens (which is true of all kit lenses), it's really not so bad at all.

[paperbag846]

I think I've explained myself to death on the 18-55mm, many are happy with it, I'm not, that's all there is to it really.

Yes, I suppose so. Does not change the fact that I believe that at least half of your issues with the kit lens are due to you expecting the best consumer zoom to come packaged with your camera.

Praise of the kit lens is partially due to it outperforming many other kit lenses in tests, and it's price. Here we are comparing budget with budget. For some reason, you are comparing the 18-55 with the 16-45, which is about 3 times the price.

No need to respond, you have explained yourself throughly, but I feel that it should be tempered with other remarks for the benefit of others who might stumble upon this thread .

[papillon_65]

Yes, I suppose so. Does not change the fact that I believe that at least half of your issues with the kit lens are due to you expecting the best consumer zoom to come packaged with your camera.

They're not, but like I said, it's old news now.

Praise of the kit lens is partially due to it outperforming many other kit lenses in tests, and it's price. Here we are comparing budget with budget. For some reason, you are comparing the 18-55 with the 16-45, which is about 3 times the price.

I compared it to every other kit lens I've used, which is quite a few. I replaced it with the 16-54mm. I need to be clear about that as it is very relevant.

No need to respond, you have explained yourself throughly, but I feel that it should be tempered with other remarks for the benefit of others who might stumble upon this thread .

I'm quite for people to comment on my view, as long as it's accurate.

[Ash]

I'm quite for people to comment on my view, as long as it's accurate.

... which I believe responders here have done so, even if they have disagreed with your view.

[papillon_65]

... which I believe responders here have done so, even if they have disagreed with your view.

Clearly not if someone is saying I compared the 18-55mm to the 16-45mm. I only commented on the 16-45mm after I bought it. I certainly did not expect the kit lens to perform better, or at the level of the 16-45mm. I compared the 18-55mm to other kit lenses I have owned. Let's get that straight if nothing else.

[Pentaxor]

for reference purposes >>> Pentax smc DA 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 AL II review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com

basically, the charts here is pretty consistent to what I have experienced personally with the lens.

and if I were to consider an upgrade from a kitlens, I would seriously consider this >>> Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com

[Jewelltrail]

Paperbag:Yes and that makes the comparison rather dubious. I like the compromise of ASP-C, but I'm not so sure if I would want to go smaller.

Except for the viewfinder, I like the compromises of crop sensor too.

I think the 4/3rds system is wonderful if you like sharp, large DOF shots. However the larger sensor sizes allow for more creativity, which I quite value. I really don't think the kit lens is as bad as people make it out to be... it is very easy to blame a cheap lens for a bad shots, though .

I do not think the 4/3rds systems are wonderful: they are too close to P & S world for me, where DOF reigns. However, the beautiful glass, especially in mico 4/3rds, which is lighter and still faster, in some cases, has an allure.

For me, the kit lens is, in fact, useless. I use the focal range, to landscape. I bought the K20d body only, and picked up a Tamron 17-50mm, because I was fully aware of the compromises involved with the Kit. Years later, I took comparison shots with the 2 lenses, because I read so much about how the Kit can compete with more expensive lenses, within a restricted set of parameters, of course. So I shot the 2 lenses, at f8, in good light--identical scenes. The results were amazing: The Tamron outresolved the Kit--in a big way. This was particularly evident at infinity focus, in detailed subjects like trees. At %100, the difference was obviously even more magnified. The Kit, in no way for what I do with it, can compete with a lens far more expensive than it--which is what one would expect. So why people make it their cross to bear to try and sell the Kit as more than this is beyond me. Up close, the kit can get some nice detailed shots--no doubt, but, again, this does nothing for my needs in a lens of this focal range.

I am not shooting with a 14+MP camera, so that I can mount a lens which has no business being on the mount in the first place. Could I get nice shots with the Kit--of course I could, but I can get even better ones with better glass--why waste my time with a lens which was designed and is packaged, as a means to an end, not an end in itself. The lens is designed & packaged for noobies. It allows them to shoot, see what they like, and be better positioned to invest in good glass as a result of the Kit experience. It was not made to compete with glass far more expensive than it.

Now I really noticed a difference when I bought my first prime, the A 28mm f2.8, in comparison to the kit lens... but the quality of the photographs have much more to do with me than the lens, and after a year of not touching the thing, I'm beginning to find that many of the things I was unhappy about with the kit lens was actually due to me.

Your confession is fine, but has no business here in a response to me. Remember, I bought the Kit lens recently--never owned one initially. All of my bad shots in photography were not experienced with a Kit, and are still not done with the Kit. I bought the Kit, when I knew what I was doing, out of curiosity, to see what it actually can do. Now I have seen, and to be honest, though my expectations are usually reasonable in such matters, the Kit failed them miserably within my shooting parameters.

The whole DOF limitation of the kit is easily remedied with a rather inexpensive 50mm f1.7, anyways, or one of the Tamron 2.8 zooms. Considering this is the largest fault of the kit lens (which is true of all kit lenses), it's really not so bad at all.

I owned close to 20 fast 50s--long before I owned the Kit. The 18-55mm focal range is not one I use for DOF creativity, not even with my Tamron 17-50 2.8. I like longer focal lengths for portrait work, which is when DOF comes into play for me.

[stevebrot]

for reference purposes >>> Pentax smc DA 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 AL II review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com

basically, the charts here is pretty consistent to what I have experienced personally with the lens.

and if I were to consider an upgrade to a kitlens, I would seriously consider this >>> Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com

Both the Sigma and its Tamron competitor are VERY good options as a trade-up from the 18-55, though both suffer somewhat in the manual focus department due to short focus throw, though that characteristic is not unusual even on manual focus legacy glass at the short end of things.

I seriously considered buying the Sigma at one point, but was put off by the price. Perhaps I will go that direction when/if I upgrade the K10D.


Steve

[Jewelltrail]

Paperbag: Praise of the kit lens is partially due to it outperforming many other kit lenses in tests, and it's price. Here we are comparing budget with budget. For some reason, you are comparing the 18-55 with the 16-45, which is about 3 times the price.

That is true of my praise of the Kit, and certainly of many others' praise of the Kit, but, unfortunately, not true of all. There are many who seem convinced the Kit is more than this. Herein lies the tension & conflict in this thread.

Remember the OPs topic: "The Kit, nothing Exciting ." I would say, without doubt, the Kit is nothing exciting, unless, of course, %50 beef burgers still excite you.

[Jewelltrail]

Stevbrot: Both the Sigma and its Tamron competitor are VERY good options as a trade-up from the 18-55, though both suffer somewhat in the manual focus department due to short focus throw, though that characteristic is not unusual even on manual focus legacy glass at the short end of things.

Coming from one who loves to manually focus, and who has taken over 15,000 shots with the Tamron 17-50mm in the last 3 years, I would say this is true of the Tamron. But I have so many MF lenses already that I can quench that desire with a quick dismount/mount. However, MFing is still doable, if all the pleasure is out of it. For me, this is where the hyperfocal distance takes over--in place of MFing.