[clackers]

Yup, The two of the truck are sharper.

You're a devil, Wpresto! ☺

[Dewman]

This is why I keep saying to folks, the fact that your <put the name of your worst lens here> sucks does not mean, it's a bad lens. It doesn't mean you should be telling others not to buy it if it meets there needs in other ways. There is nothing to my mind worse than coming on the forum and pushing people on to lenses that are not the focal length for what they do, or meets more than the requirements they need. 90% of the forum try to sell more than the person is asking for.

My copy of the 18-250 is terrible, but, others are quite happy with it. The thing is, if you get a good 18-55, you've got a great lens. One of the reasons for buying Pentax is it's better than you get on other brands. If your needs are light, you might luck into a great lens without spending a lot of money. Sometimes it's worth the gamble.

The absolute worst thing about the forum is people trashing all copies of the bad lenses they've owned. Everyone seems to think their world is the whole world. In my lens comparisons, those "bad" lenses always get a few votes. Even between the good and bad lenses, comparing straight up on the same image, you don't always get a clear winner in terms of how much people like the good one and the "bad" one. What a cheap lens gets you is the opportunity to get the best possible image taken at that point in time and space, without laying out a pile of money. If you got a good copy and all it's strengths line up, it may blow away your $5000 lens someone said you needed to get nice bokeh.

More expensive lenses often have better build quality. If you don't use your camera enough to risk breaking the lens, or wearing it out, you don't care about that. Some lenses feel a lot smoother or are better damped. If you just want an image or two a couple times a month that's irrelevant. I swear, a lot of the time this place is worse than a camera store. someone comes in and asks for a good cheap walk around lens, and someone will recommend the 16-50, without fail. I've never seen a camera store salesman trying to up-sell prospective buyers, like the some people on this forum do.

I used my *ist 18-55 and Sigma 70-300 for four or 5 years, without feeling the need to upgrade. And I was teaching photography at the time. Yet I see all these newbies pushing people who aren't even pros into expensive glass. It can be distressing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting slow and working your way into what you might need.

If there was one piece of advice I'd give people starting out on the forum, it would be, most of these people aren't pros, most of their advice is suspect.

Some DA 18-55










One of those images sold for over $200, as a 20x30 canvas print. Just how much can you ask from a lens? It paid for itself in one sale, and put $50 in my pocket. I'd love to have more lenses capable of that.

Extremely well said, Norm! I couldn't agree more. I notice what you're talking about more times than I care to remember. Someone will come along and ask a simple question, as you said.... "What's a good economical 'walk-around lens'," and immediately they will be inundated with hordes of suggestions for lenses in the $400 + range. Maybe to some folks, a $400 lens is "economical," but for this product of Dust Bowl Okies, it surely isn't. One of the best "walk-around" lenses I own is a Tamron 28-200mm that I paid $15.00 for at a yard sale! THAT is economical! It just happened to be one of those "special" lenses that is far sharper than it's supposed to be. Also, maybe it's just personal preference, but for a walk-around lens to be suitable, I would prefer that it have a reasonable focal length range, in case a situation calls for more reach than lesser lenses.


I acquired an 18-250mm lens a couple of months ago and so far, my opinion is kinda' riding the fence. I'm one of those who values sharpness almost more than any other virtue and I find my copy somewhat lacking in that department. But, to be fair, I haven't taken it out and spent an entire day with it and it alone! When I do, THEN I can offer a reasonable opinion of MY copy of this lens.


I get somewhat piqued when I hear someone refer to the 18-55mm lens in the general tone of "But, after all, it's ONLY a kit lens." Horse feathers! If you find a good one, it's a superb lens, as your photos so eloquently demonstrate! Granted, you might have to go through a few until you find that one special copy, but when you do, THEN you've got something worth hanging on to!


By the way, I would guess that the photo you sold for $200 was #2, am I right? I like them all a lot, but #2 really snaps my shorts!

[grahame]

I agree with you, norm head and Dewman. we should find/help members finding the right gear that fits the needs, instead of those much more expensive glass.

However, as Dewman found out, lens copy variation actually plays a much more important role in IQ than most people could realize. For those who are new in photograph, price and online feedback are the most important resources. When they come here for suggestions, members here can only give advice base on his/her own experience towards that lens. And we have to agree that the chance you can find a good copy in $100 18-55 is less than in 16-50s.

-- I have a sigma 70-300 lens, older version, and it is much better than the lester APO version i have tried, better than DA 55-300, HD 55-300 WR. But that is the only copy I found in past years that is that good. If I recommend someone to get a "same lens", I am afraid 90% chance he/she will be disappointed. So if I were asked for suggestion on long tele lens, I will suggested DA 55-300 even when it was priced at $300-400, rather than the $80 Sigma. Meanwhile, both DA 60-250 I have experienced are almost equally good, both are better than Sigma.

So you might have got my point: it will be safer to recommend a higher price tagged lens than a cheaper one if IQ is the first concern, and in fact most come to ask for help wants a "sharp" lens.

that is why I think your thread is very valuable: lens reviews published online, or commends we can find are mostly based on "the copy" reviewer tested. they are helpful of course, but don't count on the reviews only. try it and find out if it is yours, even better to try multiple copies of same lens and do side by side comparison. -- But how many of us have such luxury? :-)

Newman, I guess the purpose of starting this thread is to said "even kit lens could be a good one.. don't over spend $$ than what you really need", but it might encourage members to buy more than one copy of each lens to find a better one! :-)

[boriscleto]

I get somewhat piqued when I hear someone refer to the 18-55mm lens in the general tone of "But, after all, it's ONLY a kit lens." Horse feathers! If you find a good one, it's a superb lens, as your photos so eloquently demonstrate! Granted, you might have to go through a few until you find that one special copy, but when you do, THEN you've got something worth hanging on to!

If the person using the lens doesn't know what to do with it the results will still be crap.

[northcoastgreg]

I've owned two copies of only one lens, the DA 12-24, and there's a five year gap between the ownership of the two lenses, so I was never able to make a side by side comparison. Nonetheless, the second version, which I purchased six weeks ago, seems better. The first version, although sharp from edge to edge at close distances, suffered from poor resolution away from the center at longer distances. The second version may be a little weaker in terms of corner sharpness at the wide end, but it's definitely better at longer distances, sharper at the long end, and more resistant to CA.

[Nicolas06]

Over the past few years, I've realized just how different the IQ can be between two "identical" lenses. Case in point: I've had at least
10 DA & DA L18-55mm lenses, with varying differences in image quality. I have kept one that is amazing in it's sharpness and color rendition. It is far, FAR superior to every other one of them I've owned and used. I realize that this is a fairly common case with just about all lenses, but the difference between my keeper and the others is astounding. It's my 'go-to' lens for almost all my still life photos and even for occasional landscape shots. I might mention that it's the WR version, for whatever difference that might make.


Just recently, I acquired another supposedly "identical" copy of a favorite of mine, a Tamron 28-200mm lens. Just for S&G's, I attached the new Tamron and went for a walk around the neighborhood and took a few shots. I came back home, downloaded them and was shocked! They weren't even close to what my old standby was capable of. So, I took my old favorite, took the same walk and shot the very same scenes that I had just shot with the newbie and WOW! My suspicions were immediately confirmed. Not even in the same ballpark! The sharpness on my old standby is on the order of a good 8.5 - 9, the newbie would be doing good to rate a 6 or better. I can see why some lenses don't get a very high recommendation. I love my "good" Tamron and it has provided me with some excellent images over the years, but this other one will have a new home soon.


Why do you suppose this is? Bad QC? Poor handling by previous owners? Or, it is just "the way it is"?

2-3 things for me... I'd say most lenses are good enough for many uses. The biggest issue migh be you need f/2.8 or f/2 for that deph of field effect or low light... Then you may want to spend 300$ on a tamron that does just that or say a DA50 f/1.8 for maybe 150$.

You may want a variety of focal length or maybe a macro lens. Depending of your practice.

Other than that except if you got a bad sample, well most DSLR lenses are good enough. I would not say to me you were so lucky getting a great kit lens but very unlucky, by a fair margin to get 9 dud.

Because this is what you got. Unfortunately, there no chance for the 18-55 to perform like a Zeiss. But both the Zeiss (before QA maybe) or the 18-55 can be dud. But the 18-55 is a fine piece of glass and get good results. My father had one, a few friends too. Their photos are sharp.

I saw a guy doing stunning pictures, and showing the difference between the first picture he took and the latest one that were incredible, sharp and beautiful. He explained he still used the same sigma f/2.8 17-50 lens from day one, paid something like 300$... But learned how to make great things with it...

But on the opposite, getting a great lens need no time, you click on a website and can get it delivered to you the 36hours after... Becoming a better photographer require lot of time, dedication and experience and not everybody will manage...

[Dewman]

2-3 things for me... I'd say most lenses are good enough for many uses. The biggest issue migh be you need f/2.8 or f/2 for that deph of field effect or low light... Then you may want to spend 300$ on a tamron that does just that or say a DA50 f/1.8 for maybe 150$.

You may want a variety of focal length or maybe a macro lens. Depending of your practice.

.

You would do well to read my signature. I do indeed have a variety of focal lengths and three of the best macro lenses that Pentax has ever produced.

[larchman77]

You would do well to read my signature. I do indeed have a variety of focal lengths and three of the best macro lenses that Pentax has ever produced.

This thread is quite helpful to me. After my first DA 55-300 was dropped during a trip to Ireland, I purchased another. The second copy is a disappointment, especially beyond 200mm. Now, I am trying to decide whether to buy an HD 55-300 to see if I will find any improvement...or am I just chasing rainbows?