[Driline]

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).

There are laws against this kind of thing........

[Joel B]

There are laws against this kind of thing........

" You with the Pentax, PUT THE CAMERA DOWN!!"-FBI camera crimes division
Sorry couldn't resist,
Joel

[OldNoob]

Hey Sagitta
I just tried a photo with the same settings and got similar results.
Exposure 0.05 sec (1/20) Aperture f/5.6 Focal Length 24.4 mm ISO Speed 100
But i wont post the samples ,, cause lord knows no one wants to see that.
Anyway yes the lens is great for closeups.

[OldNoob]

Actually this lens is just fine for documenting events ,, like just how stupid i can be with a utility knife today.

---

Last edited by OldNoob; 02-07-2014 at 09:24 AM.

[Joel B]

Actually this lens is just fine for documenting events ,, like just how stupid i can be with a utility knife today.

That photo is as sharp as a utility knife!!
P.S. Don't feel bad, I tried to grind off my finger with a lawn mower last year. My wife, daughter, nurse and doctor all told me I was an idiot!

[jatrax]

One of the reasons you get such a wide range of opinions on the kit lens is the expectations of the user. If you have used high end glass or good primes, the kit lens is not going to compare. But if you come from a P&S for example it produces amazing results. For what it is (a <$100 lens) it produces excellent results if you take the time to learn the limitations. Comparing it to other lenses at 4 or 5 times the cost is not really fair.

Another reason is sample variation, as noted before the kit lenses are 'mass' produced and are likely to have wider tolerances for QC.

The last reason is the skill of photographer. Put someone behind the camera who is truly good and they will get good images with just about any lens. You have to learn the lens and it's limitations and shoot with that in mind.

[Mr Spocko]

I agree I'd rather have a good shot on a ho hum lens, than a bad shot on a tack sharp lens.
But all things being equal I think the 18-55mm is "ok" at the wide end stopped down, but quite unsatisfactory over 35mm

Still think it's time to update the lens needs some improving

[OldNoob]

toying with the macro setting in low light. (Waiting for my manfrotto to arrive). A Tripod absolutely required with this lens in low light with low ISO settings..
Top of a Paul Newmans wine bottle at f/5.6 (horrible) and a 800x600 100% crop of my thumb with flash on at f/7.1 (acceptable)

[Joel B]

a 800x600 100% crop of my thumb with flash on at f/7.1 (acceptable)

Not if you're eating breakfast!! Eewww!!

[TenZ.NL]

I`ll chime in too. Not using my 18-55WR really often but I think it`s not as bad as some say.

55mm, F5.6:

Yes, it`s weatherproof!

18mm, F8:

Voor Paulus ;)

18mm, F16:

Goodbye view...

[Driline]

I only use my DA 18-55 II for quick ebay merchandise shots or train layout shots as all of these require a tripod so the IQ doesn't suffer as much. It's also easier to quickly zoom where I need it to go. I would never take this lens on an camera "outing". For those shots I take my FA 43, DA 21 combo or add the DA*50-135 if I think I'm going to need it.

[paulh]

Here's a snap taken by the lake yesterday with a K10D & the original DA18-55. Nothing special here, but I think the lens is fine stopped down in good light. This was f/8 or f/11:

[altopiet]

I see quite a few people saying that you should just find the sweet spot, that might be perhaps, say @35mm, or something like that, for someone else perhaps another setting... My problem is that the lens is supposed to give passable images all over. If I can only get passable images at a certain focal length and aperture, I might just as well get a prime fot that purpose. That said, I'll take my WR for another spin this weekend, just to see if perhaps I missed something the other times😊

[pacerr]

Here's an article regarding quality sampling and variation vs. cost that might be of interest. There's always the possibility of finding either a perfectly good or a perfectly bad sample of anything, especially kit lenses -- but the probability of finding a top 10-percent lens certainly increases with cost.

As a practical example, at one time I had hands on three DA 50-200s to evaluate for pick-of-the-litter. Two were nominal examples of the type; one was very noticeably superior in IQ. Sometimes you get lucky when all the tolerance margins of economy items average out at the top end of the scale -- heck, even a blind squirrel may find an acorn once in a while.



https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/53-pentax-dslr-camera-articles/199363-good-lens-sample.html

[paulh]

I see quite a few people saying that you should just find the sweet spot, that might be perhaps, say @35mm, or something like that, for someone else perhaps another setting... My problem is that the lens is supposed to give passable images all over. If I can only get passable images at a certain focal length and aperture, I might just as well get a prime fot that purpose. That said, I'll take my WR for another spin this weekend, just to see if perhaps I missed something the other times😊

I really don't expect prime-like results from an inexpensive kit zoom. All lenses, even primes, have their strengths & weaknesses. With a little care, you can usually get pretty good images from the 18-55. For a lot of "regular folks" (not enthusiasts or many PF members), the kit lens may be one of their only lenses, so it has to be versatile enough to cover many shooting situations. And a lot of those people are probably perfectly happy with the kit lens for family outings & vacation shots.