[crossmr]

Interesting perspective. How do you get new users in any numbers if you do not put something out that is attractive to them based on their previous experience and at the same time is competitive with other offerings in the same class?

They already do that. The Kit lens are "good enough" for being off the shelf. I bought my K-M 4 years ago, and used the kit Lens. It was the first lens I got, and for 6 months, it was all I used. I took quite a few pictures that I was quite happy with at the time. However, experienced DSLR users generally don't continue to use the kit lens. dummy probably wasn't the right word, what I meant was, it's more like a placeholder, something to tie you over until you get something better. Sufficient to start using your first DSLR, but probably not even really intended to be used long term if you're really into photography. It's fine for people who buy a DSLR as a big automatic camera, and only ever take snapshots. So I don't think the IQ is as important. The middle of the road IQ is probably sufficient for these lenses. Just to keep the barrier to entry lower.

[arnold]

Actually, I'd like to see side-by-side pix (of the same scene) of the DA 18-55 AL WR kit lens vs. the 16-45 F4 that seems to be held in high regard.

There have been some absolutely splendid photos here, taken with the 18/55. In the vast majority of cases, a more expensive lens would not be obvious in comparison. I would like to see 'lens snobs' put to the test with comparisons between the 18/55 and lenses costing four times as much. In any case, many great photographs are famous for their impact, not their resolution.

[Docrwm]

I'm not dissing the 18-55, I'm saying that when I see those uncovered lenses on Canikons at soccer games without any bag they are almost 100% of the time sporting a SUPER zoom not a short zoom like the 18-55. A lens like that (18 to 200+ish) paired with an entry-level K-r replacement would open up a lot of new interest in Pentax.

[Just1MoreDave]

Actually, I'd like to see side-by-side pix (of the same scene) of the DA 18-55 AL WR kit lens vs. the 16-45 F4 that seems to be held in high regard.

I have done a sharpness test but only at 24mm. I did some side by side test shots when I got the 16-45 but that was with the *ist DS and original kit lens. The tests were enough to convince me, not polished enough to post here.

I think all manufacturers have changed the kit concept, they just don't have as much pricing room to change it as you think. My brother got an IS kit with his Canon T3, the bottom of the Canon line. Pentax has the best options for the high end cameras: a cheap WR kit or a more expensive 18-135 WR. It's somewhat like dealing drugs: they want to get you hooked before telling you how much they charge for the "good" lenses.

[crossmr]

I'm not dissing the 18-55, I'm saying that when I see those uncovered lenses on Canikons at soccer games without any bag they are almost 100% of the time sporting a SUPER zoom not a short zoom like the 18-55. A lens like that (18 to 200+ish) paired with an entry-level K-r replacement would open up a lot of new interest in Pentax.

The K-30 has that.. you can buy a set with body and something other than the 18-55 as a default. but are you suggesting that the kit box should be an out of the box total solution in one? You can get a K-30 with an 18-55 and 50-200 for $896 off B&H. or 55-300 for $996.

[Docrwm]

The K-30 has that.. you can buy a set with body and something other than the 18-55 as a default. but are you suggesting that the kit box should be an out of the box total solution in one? You can get a K-30 with an 18-55 and 50-200 for $896 off B&H. or 55-300 for $996.

NO it does not. I am talking about a single lens that goes from 18 to 200-250 a Superzoom.

[crossmr]

NO it does not. I am talking about a single lens that goes from 18 to 200-250 a Superzoom.

So then you are looking for an all in one solution. You can get a sigma 18-250 for $400 or a pentax 18-270 for $800. That makes a "kit" price rather high though, K-30 body and 18-270 for about $1385.
Getting out of entry level range, even if they discounted that slightly for a kit price..
I read some posts a few years ago that suggest pentax wasn't really interested in an 18-200.. not sure if they've changed their mind.

[G and T]

NO it does not. I am talking about a single lens that goes from 18 to 200-250 a Superzoom.

I can understand this completely having bought a 18-135WR ($344 with full warranty) from a shop that had split it from a K30 kit, where the purchaser had
opted for a super-zoom.
Glenn

[Tonto]

I can understand this completely having bought a 18-135WR ($344 with full warranty) from a shop that had split it from a K30 kit, where the purchaser had
opted for a super-zoom.
Glenn

All the more reason Pentax should have made the DA 18-270 WR...that would have warrented the extra price aswell.

[TaoMaas]

I have a Sigma 28-300 superzoom that would be, for many photographers, almost all they'd ever need - and it was cheap.

The original post wasn't talking about a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Superzooms are not what most serious photographers would consider "good" lenses.

[TaoMaas]

I would like to see 'lens snobs' put to the test with comparisons between the 18/55 and lenses costing four times as much.

When I bought my DSLR, I wanted to buy it with the 16-45, rather than the 18-55, but it wasn't offered that way. IMHO, the 16-45 would be a "keeper" lens, but the 18-55 is a "throw-away".

[Docrwm]

The original post wasn't talking about a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Superzooms are not what most serious photographers would consider "good" lenses.

We're not talking exclusively about "serious photographers" we're talking about kits and what they ought to have in them. I suggested, rather immediately at the beginning of the thread, that Pentax lags behind in this area too - not because the 18-55 is a poor kit lens optically because its at least as good as the competitions intro kit lenses - but because many of the casual photographers I see with a Canikon dSLR and lens have 1 lens total and its a superzoom they got with their camera. Pentax does NOT offer anything like that combination.

Serious photographers buy a body and a lens separately most of the time because they avoid the kit lenses. Genuinely serious photographers also buy the top of the line lenses that cost a considerable amount more than the casual photographer is going to pay.

[crossmr]

but because many of the casual photographers I see with a Canikon dSLR and lens have 1 lens total and its a superzoom they got with their camera. Pentax does NOT offer anything like that combination.

A quick check of B&H Photo shows the Nikon D3100, 3200, 5100, and 5200 all come with 18-55 or with a 50-200 as well. The 5200 also has an 18-105. Not one kit with a super zoom.
t3i, t4i, t5i 18-55 or 18-135

I don't see any entry level DSLRs coming with super zoom kits at all. At least not through B&H, nor best buy. The closest thing I saw on Best buy was a d3200 with kit lens and an EXTRA (as part of the description) 18-200 lens. Not exactly a kit so much as it is a package.

So I don't know really know where you are finding these kits that everyone apparently has, but Pentaxes offers seem to be more or less standard based on what Canon and Nikon are selling.

[arnold]

When I bought my DSLR, I wanted to buy it with the 16-45, rather than the 18-55, but it wasn't offered that way. IMHO, the 16-45 would be a "keeper" lens, but the 18-55 is a "throw-away".

By what standard? Have look at this sample and tell me you could see it was taken by a throw away lens.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/10402...ml#post2089919

[carcrazy]

I had an old MZ-7 film camera with two kit lenses, a FA 28 - 80 zoom and a FA 80 - 320 zoom. When I bought my first DSLR a month ago, a K5 II body, I just used these FA lenses. This was okay for a little while but I got bit by the lens bug and I have bought 5 prime lenses (one a Tamron macro) since then and a 2x Vivatar teleconverter.

If I had just wanted to take the occasional pic the FA zoom lenses would have been just fine but I want to experiment a little so I have started to collect lenses. And I am very impressed by the quality of the old lenses, with care I am sure that they will outlast me. As a first time buyer, the extra cost of the body and a kit lens was too much and I opted for just the body. The actual $ cost was the main initial factor for me, although I have spent about $500 on lenses since then. Darn LBA.