[Pentaxor]

short focus throw can be a pain, especially for mf-ing. a slight turn can make a difference between focused and slightly-off focused. this is what I liked about lenses with a longer throw. you can attain focused images without a problem. and can get more precised. but anyway, if it's AF, I don't think you should worry about that much or even needed to. certain lenses with that kind of characteristic have fast and reliable AF.

[paperbag846]

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.

Yes, I believe I was a little confused as to what inspired this topic. I would completely agree that the kit does not hold a candle to most other lenses, particularly the tamron 17-50 which I am throughly impressed with.

I suppose my opinion that the kit "is what it is" is not particularly useful to this discussion, so I will return to the sidelines . In the end I do use my kit only when I fear my lens will be in danger, which says quite a bit. I suppose I don't think it is anything special, either.

[papillon_65]

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.

I wonder how many people who continually assert that "it's the best kit lens out there" have ever used any other kit lenses? It may be better than Canon or Nikons older offerings but it's not even close to being the best kit lens available.
I'm not talking about MTF charts or reviews, I'm talking about personal experience.

[Ash]

I wonder how many people who continually assert that "it's the best kit lens out there" have ever used any other kit lenses? It may be better than Canon or Nikons older offerings but it's not even close to being the best kit lens available.
I'm not talking about MTF charts or reviews, I'm talking about personal experience.

Would it matter that many of us here have used most big name systems' kit lenses - I have personally tried out Canon's, Nikon's and Olympus's. All swift and responsive, but ordinary results - I'm reasonably pleased with the kit lens in this regard, but not for much else as we've kept saying...

[papillon_65]

Would it matter that many of us here have used most big name systems' kit lenses - I have personally tried out Canon's, Nikon's and Olympus's. All swift and responsive, but ordinary results - I'm reasonably pleased with the kit lens in this regard, but not for much else as we've kept saying...

I guess it depends if you've tried them or owned them, there's a big difference. I can only surmise it's not as many as you think.

[RioRico]

People, get over it.
The DA18-55 is a good lens, not a great lens.
Many other (costlier) lenses have better optics.
But any lens is only as good as its user.
I find my DA18-55 very useful for specific purposes.
The kit lens is like abortion -- if you object, don't have one.
If you don't know how to use the 18-55, then don't.
Now take a good dump, and relax.
You will feel better.

[papillon_65]

People, get over it.
The DA18-55 is a good lens, not a great lens.
Many other (costlier) lenses have better optics.
But any lens is only as good as its user.
I find my DA18-55 very useful for specific purposes.
The kit lens is like abortion -- if you object, don't have one.
If you don't know how to use the 18-55, then don't.
Now take a good dump, and relax.
You will feel better.

Thats what I object to, the implication that because I don't rate the two copies I have then I don't know how to use them. It's worth debating the merits of kit lenses because they are probably a brands most important lenses. It's easy to shrug it off and say "They're only kit lenses" but a lot of people who buy a camera like the K-x or K-m may only use these lenses. There's no point in buying a DSLR if the glass is not up to standard, you may just as well use a P&S.
If you object to people debating the merits of a kit lens than the answer is simple, don't read the thread.
The worst thing you can do is advise a prospective buyer that a certain lens is "The best kit lens you can get", when in my experience it is anything but.

[paperbag846]

It's easy to shrug it off and say "They're only kit lenses" but a lot of people who buy a camera like the K-x or K-m may only use these lenses. There's no point in buying a DSLR if the glass is not up to standard, you may just as well use a P&S.

I'm sorry, but this logic is really out there. Why buy into an interchangable lens system if you are only going to use one lens? There's not much point in owning an SLR if you only plan on using the kit lens (although there are still some advantages, such as greater manual control etc.) In general, I would strongly disagree that the kit lens is the most important lens Pentax makes, and it is clearly not for you. They made the 16-45 for people like you.

I fail to see the issue here.It's the cheapest zoom they make, so how good does it need to be?

[Pentaxor]

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

it does seem to be a little bit expensive. although other than the lack of WR, it is pretty much of a better deal than the DA*16-50. I mean, I would choose HSM over SDM.

[reeftool]

Pentax is certainly capable of selling a much better kit lens than the current 18-55. It would also drive the cost of the camera and lens kit up a couple of hundred bucks. There are now kits being sold with the 35/2.5 which has pretty good IQ by all reports. I would expect that far more beginners buying their first DSLR would prefer the 18-55 zoom. I have no gripes at all with mine. Perhaps the OP has a bad copy, that happens sometimes. None of the kit zooms by any of the manufacturers are any better. Spend a little time on some other forums and the same gripes go on and on. Yes, there are a lot of high quality zooms in that size range. Looking at some current prices on Adorama, the 16-45 is around $500 and and 16-50 is over $1000. Compare that to the price of the 18-55 or the other "kit" lenses being bundled such as the 50-200 and 55-300. It gives a new photographer a good starting point at an affordable price and a few minutes of browsing the photo gallery and member albums, one will see hundreds of stunning photos taken with these lenses.

[papillon_65]

I'm sorry, but this logic is really out there. Why buy into an interchangable lens system if you are only going to use one lens? There's not much point in owning an SLR if you only plan on using the kit lens (although there are still some advantages, such as greater manual control etc.) In general, I would strongly disagree that the kit lens is the most important lens Pentax makes, and it is clearly not for you. They made the 16-45 for people like you.

I fail to see the issue here.It's the cheapest zoom they make, so how good does it need to be?

Kit lenses often come in pairs these days. DSLR's are cheaper than a lot of bridge cameras so plenty of non-enthusiasts pick them up just for perceived better IQ. If they see a sub par performance from a lens or compare it to previous cameras they may be disappointed and go elsewhere. If kit lenses weren't important they wouldn't have evolved to be better than they were a few years ago.
How good does it need to be? at least comparable with the opposition. Comparing the three lenses across the brand I shoot with, the 18-55mm is easily the worst, and not by a small margin.That's my experience, if you are happy with it, I don't have a problem with that, and who would care if I did. I'm just adding some balance to the rampant promotion that this lens is the best kit lens out there. If you don't care about that, no problem.

[papillon_65]

Pentax is certainly capable of selling a much better kit lens than the current 18-55. It would also drive the cost of the camera and lens kit up a couple of hundred bucks. There are now kits being sold with the 35/2.5 which has pretty good IQ by all reports. I would expect that far more beginners buying their first DSLR would prefer the 18-55 zoom. I have no gripes at all with mine. Perhaps the OP has a bad copy, that happens sometimes. None of the kit zooms by any of the manufacturers are any better. Spend a little time on some other forums and the same gripes go on and on. Yes, there are a lot of high quality zooms in that size range. Looking at some current prices on Adorama, the 16-45 is around $500 and and 16-50 is over $1000. Compare that to the price of the 18-55 or the other "kit" lenses being bundled such as the 50-200 and 55-300. It gives a new photographer a good starting point at an affordable price and a few minutes of browsing the photo gallery and member albums, one will see hundreds of stunning photos taken with these lenses.

That's my point, some of the kit lenses elsewhere absolutely are better, and by a considerable margin in terms of performance and usability, at least in my experience.
I have a Panasonic 14-45mm kit lens which is sharper at F3.5 than the 18-55 at any focal length and aperture, at least my copies of it anyway. It also has a better range, built in OIS and is half the size (though it is an m4/3's lens).

[paperbag846]

DSLR's are cheaper than a lot of bridge cameras so plenty of non-enthusiasts pick them up just for perceived better IQ.

DSLR's are cheaper than what cameras? Even beginner DSLRs are more expensive than film and P&Ss. The more expensive options are things like MF, etc.

Kit lenses only come in pairs if you buy them in pairs. I, for one, skipped that option, and know many who did. Kit lenses have evolved because sensors in cameras have become very high resolution. This does not mean that they should be as sharp as other lenses you could throw on your camera.

PS what is the resolution of your Pen, Panny, and Oly? Your perception of sharpness between lenses could be confounded by things like sensor size and resolution.

A lens will look sharper on a 10mp camera at 100% than a 14mp camera at 100%.

If your Oly and or Panny are less than 14mp (likely) that could also contribute to your findings.

I maintain that the kit is ho-hum, but having seen multiple lens tests by actual reviewers (like DPreview), who compare it favourably to other brands, I'm not so sure I should take you too seriously...

[papillon_65]

DSLR's are cheaper than what cameras? Even beginner DSLRs are more expensive than film and P&Ss. The more expensive options are things like MF, etc.

Kit lenses only come in pairs if you buy them in pairs. I, for one, skipped that option, and know many who did. Kit lenses have evolved because sensors in cameras have become very high resolution. This does not mean that they should be as sharp as other lenses you could throw on your camera.

PS what is the resolution of your Pen, Panny, and Oly? Your perception of sharpness between lenses could be confounded by things like sensor size and resolution.

Both the G1 and EPL-1 are 12mp, as is the K-x. The G1 out-resolved the Canon 450D when DPR tested it

A lens will look sharper on a 10mp camera at 100% than a 14mp camera at 100%.

See above

If your Oly and or Panny are less than 14mp (likely) that could also contribute to your findings.

The K-x has pretty much the same resolution as these two cameras so it's not that.

I maintain that the kit is ho-hum, but having seen multiple lens tests by actual reviewers (like DPreview), who compare it favourably to other brands, I'm not so sure I should take you too seriously...

That's up to you, I trust my eyes, they've never let me down so far. I have no agenda about this lens, just calling it as I see it from shooting with multiple kit lenses on different brands.

[paperbag846]

I have no agenda about this lens

Maybe somewhat .

Overall I think this sums it up.(from DPR)


*Olympus 14-42 mm kit lens are good
Olympus E-510 EVOLT Review: 31. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review
Olympus E-410 EVOLT Review: 28. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review
*Nikon's DX 18-55 mm VR (comes with the D60) is also good
Nikon D60 Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review
http://www.dpreview.com/.../lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/page4.asp
The non VR (the one packed with the D40/D40x) is ok
Nikon D40X Review: 27. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review
* Pentax DA 18-55 ok
Pentax DA 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 AL Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
* Canon's EF-S 18-55 IS is good
http://www.dpreview.com/.../lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page5.asp
BUT it's not the kit lens of the CANON 400D/XTi, which is 'disappointing'
Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi Review: 29. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review
* Sony's 18-70 is not rated (which is not cool )
Sony DT 18-70mm 1:3.5-5.6 Lens Review: 4. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review
but some owners strongly disagree and I recall KM 7D/5D owners being pretty happy about it (note that those cameras were 6 MP instead of 10, so resolution wise limitations might not have been noticeable)
Hope it helps. Regards

In the end though, it's not very important. Remember that the DA 18-55 above is the MKI version, which scores lower than the MKII.

From photozone:

"The Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL is a surprisingly good kit zoom although it has its weaknesses specifically at 18mm. The center and border performance is fine here but the extreme corners are somewhat soft. Pronounced vignetting and reduced contrast are also present at f/3.5. At 35mm and 55mm the situation is much better. CAs are very well controlled. The build quality is good for a kit zoom and a level up from the rest of the gang such as the Canon EF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED. All-in-all a good offer from a price/value perspective but naturally there're better lenses out there ... with a much higher price tag."

It all checks out. It's not bad, it's not great. It's just a lens. People who are blown away by it have not used better lenses, or are good photographers and don't need a good lens to get a good photo.

You would be shocked to see what my friend is able to do with his 7 year old canon kit lens.