[BigMackCam]

Convert the DA * 60-250 F4 to full frame. Directions can be found on this web site.

Definitely a good option. Arguably better - though currently pricier - is the new D FA70-210 f/4, which is lighter and designed for full frame right out of the box

[pres589]

I've been editing RAW photos taken with my K-30 and DA 18-55 kit lens that I lent to my mother for a holiday in Singapore, Cambodia, Thailand etc. for the past few weeks. I recently got the kit lens for free with a cheap broken donor *ist DL2 camera I bought to salvage the white solenoids from it to replace my K-30 green solenoid.

This is the first time in years I have seen images taken with the 18-55 as I sold mine years ago and I have only used my trio of DA15, DA 20-40, F* 300 f4.5 and DA* 60-250 for the last few years.

The DA18-55 absolutely sucks compared to good lenses, I'm not talking about sharpness as I'm not a beginner photographer, it is sharp enough but the real qualitative measures that an experienced photographer will judge a lens on are woefully lacking. I feel people who judge a lens by sharpness years on in photography have not moved up from rung 1 on the experience or talent ladder, sharpness in lenses is never a problem and it comes in as a trivial consideration in my judgement.

Lack of 3D pop, 'flat' images, poor contrast, poor colours and colour saturation, lack of micro contrast etc. etc. The images just did not look good and I have spent weeks in Lightroom trying to get a nice photoset from the DA18-55 images.

It was a real shock when 'going back' to a kit lens like this from being used to Limiteds and * lenses which just make much more delightful punchy images and need far less post processing.

The likes of DA 20-40 Limited is in a completely different league to 18-50/55 kit lenses. It is a rare occasion where a lens outperforms expectations which is what exactly happened to me when I seen the images for the first time I used it.

Kit lenses are perfectly decent for learning with like I did or for a jpeg snapper but then why bother owning a DSLR?

If we're talking about the first version of the 18-55, that lens isn't so hot, and I assume that's the one in question if it came with an *ist. Reviews show this lens to be average at best. Reviews here also paint a more positive picture of later versions of the 18-55. I still wouldn't want to use it much given a choice of other lenses such as the 18-135 or the 3rd party 17-50's. I do think it is interesting that the 18-55 can cover a full-frame image circle from about 24mm on out; a 24-55 full frame lens of that size and weight is kind of impressive; I would like something like that for my film cameras.

[UncleVanya]

I've been editing RAW photos taken with my K-30 and DA 18-55 kit lens that I lent to my mother for a holiday in Singapore, Cambodia, Thailand etc. for the past few weeks. I recently got the kit lens for free with a cheap broken donor *ist DL2 camera I bought to salvage the white solenoids from it to replace my K-30 green solenoid.

This is the first time in years I have seen images taken with the 18-55 as I sold mine years ago and I have only used my trio of DA15, DA 20-40, F* 300 f4.5 and DA* 60-250 for the last few years.

The DA18-55 absolutely sucks compared to good lenses, I'm not talking about sharpness as I'm not a beginner photographer, it is sharp enough but the real qualitative measures that an experienced photographer will judge a lens on are woefully lacking. I feel people who judge a lens by sharpness years on in photography have not moved up from rung 1 on the experience or talent ladder, sharpness in lenses is never a problem and it comes in as a trivial consideration in my judgement.

Lack of 3D pop, 'flat' images, poor contrast, poor colours and colour saturation, lack of micro contrast etc. etc. The images just did not look good and I have spent weeks in Lightroom trying to get a nice photoset from the DA18-55 images.

It was a real shock when 'going back' to a kit lens like this from being used to Limiteds and * lenses which just make much more delightful punchy images and need far less post processing.

The likes of DA 20-40 Limited is in a completely different league to 18-50/55 kit lenses. It is a rare occasion where a lens outperforms expectations which is what exactly happened to me when I seen the images for the first time I used it.

Kit lenses are perfectly decent for learning with like I did or for a jpeg snapper but then why bother owning a DSLR?

I honestly think the 18-55 isn't as all that. But there are many versions. The original 18-55 isn't so hot. The later series II and WR versions even the DA WR versions are much better. You nailed it when you said flat. That original 18-55 is pretty lifeless. Don't lump the 18-50 in with the 18-55, it is a better lens optically in my opinion. The HD version more than the SMC one but both are better than the run of the mill 18-55. Also the 18-135 is no slouch.