[boriscleto]

And likely not too sharp, either.

Butter knife or spork?

The DA L is good enough to get over a thousand pictures into the PPG...

---

Last edited by boriscleto; 10-24-2013 at 03:07 PM.

[VisualDarkness]

Butter knife or spork?

I got two sporks, good for lunchboxes but I have yet to find work for them in photography.

[OldNoob]

My 2 cents ( worth approximately 0.00.75c)
i have tried the Sony 18-55 DT on the a580 16mp, a560 14mp and a100 10mp.->(the a100 yielded the sharpest image with the18-55mm DT, mainly because the lower resolution and the a100 allowed for complete turning off of noise reduction in contrast to the a560 and a580. However the 18-55 DT was nothing compared to the 16-50mm f/2.8 SAL1650) <- i would still be using this equipment if it had not been stolen

i have tried the Nikon 18-55 II on the D5100 16mp ->(Surprisingly bad lens could not get a sharp image to save my life and there was no front or back focusing to blame)

i have tried the Canon 18-55mm on the 3ti 18mp-> (Actually a very nice and capable camera, but i didn't like the feel of the grip. it hurt my hand. Lens was OK)
I have tried the Pentax 18-55 NON-WR plastic mount on k-30 16mp ->(Meh.... was not impressed)
I have tried the Pentax 18-55 WR metal mount on the k-30. ->
And I have to say, even though i was a bit of a Sony/Minolta fanboy, that this Pentax18-55 WR version is by far the best of all of the above 18-55mm lenes that i have tried.

That having been said,, let me just nullify all of the above by saying..... Each camera is different.

[Mr Spocko]

I agree mostly with the above. The Canon kit lens (new version and STM) is quite good and surprisingly decent (sharp) for a kit lens. Nikon's 18-55mm is out of date and can't handle it (it was ok at 12mp ok that is nothing special) The Sony 18-55mm is nothing great either but it's more consistent across it's focal range (ie it's usable at 55mm f5.6 unlike the Pentax) it also does quite well for close up shots.

Bottom line it's not really worth bothering with. Maybe there are some good WR ones out there, but I've not used one myself.
Any half decent third party offering slaps down the Pentax 18-55mm pretty hard and then some

[VisualDarkness]

I don't use my 18-55WR much anymore but everytime I do I get positively surprised. People here makes it sound like it's the worst lens ever made, but I can tell you it's not.

All taken with the, in this thread extremely bashed, WR kit lens.

[Mr Spocko]

Nice shots..but
Has to be said posting web sized shots my compact camera looks good, but you'd be a lot less impressed at full resolution.
Secondly. Most lenses are "respectable" stopped down and the Pentax isn't too bad here either, but it's not great.

[VisualDarkness]

Nice shots..but
Has to be said posting web sized shots my compact camera looks good, but you'd be a lot less impressed at full resolution.
Secondly. Most lenses are "respectable" stopped down and the Pentax isn't too bad here either, but it's not great.

I would say:
1. You really should not rely on a cheap 18-55 kit lens if you aim to make important pro work and expect to make huge and crisp prints.
2. The first shots the OP posted was web sized and looked subpar so people posting websized for comparisons isn't that far out. That was what the original question was, "Are all Pentax DA L 18-55mm this bad?" and as other posters shows the answer is no.
3. Not everyone needs all lenses to top the MTF charts, that is a fact.

[lytrytyr]

The DA L is good enough to get over a thousand pictures into the PPG.

The "sharpness" was referring to a well-known web presence, not the DA L.

[Eric Auer]

The "sharpness" was referring to a well-known web presence, not the DA L.

What?

[boriscleto]

The "sharpness" was referring to a well-known web presence, not the DA L.

Yeah, and I asked if he was a butter knife or a spork. Then addressed the OP and opined about the DA L getting over a thousand pics in PPG. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[lguckert79]

I do have to say the 31st st bridge does look good though

[Driline]

And likely not too sharp, either.

LOL. One thing you have to give him credit for at least he's making money with his craft even if it is BS. How much I don't know, but in my past dealings in business I have never once met a Paid "photographer" who actually owned their own home much less a car.

[Driline]

I don't use my 18-55WR much anymore but everytime I do I get positively surprised. People here makes it sound like it's the worst lens ever made, but I can tell you it's not.

All taken with the, in this thread extremely bashed, WR kit lens.

The average "Joe" photographer is not going to be able to take shots like that. Picasso would still be a great artist even if the only drawing utensil he had was a crayola crayon.

Even in my amateur hands after using the FA 43 and DA*50-135 lenses my 18-55 kit lens sits in a box on the shelf. After you've tasted the best, you don't ever want to go back.

[Sagitta]

Nice shots..but
Has to be said posting web sized shots my compact camera looks good, but you'd be a lot less impressed at full resolution.
Secondly. Most lenses are "respectable" stopped down and the Pentax isn't too bad here either, but it's not great.

Heres a shot my 2 year old took of me the other night. He was messing with my K-30, so I put the 18-55 on it because if he broke the thing I wouldn't cry too badly.

I may rethink my opinion after seeing the result though.

First is the 'whole' image, no PP except JPG conversin, second is a 100% crop of where he focused on me (Note to self: I need to exfoliate my nose).

[Joel B]

Heres a shot my 2 year old took of me the other night. He was messing with my K-30, so I put the 18-55 on it because if he broke the thing I wouldn't cry too badly.

I may rethink my opinion after seeing the result though.

First is the 'whole' image, no PP except JPG conversin, second is a 100% crop of where he focused on me (Note to self: I need to exfoliate my nose).

One of my big reasons for being the family photographer is that I am usually not in the shot!!