Sharpness of K10D RAW Photos Kit Zoom vs Prime Lenses?

StevenDeLapp · 12-29-2007, 11:49 AM

Am thinking of buying a K10D but am not impressed with the JPEG photos using the 18-55mm kit lens.

Has anyone tested the sharpness of their photos using the kit lens vs a good prime?

Am especially interested in how the FA31mm F1.8 compares to the kit (using RAW to minimize and degradation)! Pentax Lens Review Database - 31mm F1.8 AL Limited

Thanks

Steve

**LeoTaylor** · 12-29-2007, 03:49 PM

I do not have the FA 31 but I'd bet a prime lens costing $869 from B&H will be better than a lens with a street price of $100. I use my kit lens often, but don't expect miracles.

SpecialK · 12-29-2007, 04:16 PM

Ask an obvious question, get few replies, sorry.

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-29-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by StevenDeLapp

Am thinking of buying a K10D but am not impressed with the JPEG photos using the 18-55mm kit lens.

Has anyone tested the sharpness of their photos using the kit lens vs a good prime?

Am especially interested in how the FA31mm F1.8 compares to the kit (using RAW to minimize and degradation)! Pentax Lens Review Database - 31mm F1.8 AL Limited

Thanks

Steve

Drop into the lens test forum. You should see user reviews of all the lenses there. The kit lens is very good for what it is. It is far from perfect, but actually is one of the better kit lenses out there from any maker.

TomInJax · 12-29-2007, 05:51 PM

Tonight I had to make a decision to purchase and replace my 18-55 kit lens, or replace the Pentax 50-200 lens (that I just purchased used, and haven't yet received). I chose to get the 50-135mm. (I will be selling the 50-200 that I purchased from Sailrace if anyone is interested)

In cased you missed my line of thought, here is my reasoning: From all reviews of the kit 18-55 kit lens, it is pretty good. I decided to keep it and get the 50-135 instead of the 16-50mm. Before you pick a new lens, study the reviews on this site and others.

But, remember an investment in a lens will last much longer than an investment in a camera. I only say that because I keep forgetting this myself - and have to discover this again and again before I get it through my head.

Bart · 12-30-2007, 01:55 AM

Steven,

I think I can help you out: I did a comparison between the kit lens and a prime some time ago. Prerhaps this could be of interest to you.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/9750-some-conc...e-quality.html

roscot · 12-30-2007, 06:45 AM

The 31 limited is one of the finest SLR lenses ever produced by anybody, anywhere, at anytime. The kit lens is, well... a kit lens. It does very well for what it is.

Your initial statement and then your request is a bit odd. You are saying that you are unimpressed with jpeg, but want this comparison in raw. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to look at some raw images produced by the kit? In any case, raw images need to be processed. So the final outcome is going to be dependent on the processor's skill and taste. The only way to really do this, is for you to do it yourself, with your own processing.

pentkon52 · 12-30-2007, 07:08 AM

I have noticed some very nice photos over at Pentaxgallery, that had used the 18-55.

I have no idea what post processing may have been done, if any, but it seems to be a decent kit lens.

Dave

**rogerstg** · 12-30-2007, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by StevenDeLapp

Am thinking of buying a K10D but am not impressed with the JPEG photos using the 18-55mm kit lens.

I'm not sure what buying a camera has to do with the kit lens. You can buy the body and lenses separately.

**Ahab** · 12-31-2007, 08:21 AM

Sorry, I am impressed with JPEGS and Raw images from the 18-55.

little laker · 12-31-2007, 10:59 AM

Welcome to Pentax Forums Steve,

Sorry, but I'm a kit lens supporter.
I don't use it all that often any more, but when I do it usually amazes me.

It really doesn't mater what DSLR you use or what lens you choose you'll discover that the person behind the camera is more important than anything else.

The most expensive lens in my kit is a Sigma 135-400, which is an under $500.00 lens at todays prices.
My average lens cost me less than $50.00 used.

I don't think that there's a single person here who would say this reflects in my image quality.
Although I do admit that I haven't perfected my macro photography yet.

JamesD · 12-31-2007, 10:54 PM

Both my wife and I enjoy our kit lenses. We're not lens' purists... elitists as it were. I've sometime noticed that some (not all of course) who argue long and loud about the superiority of primes are also among those who seldom produce any images in the forum for us to examine. I'm not a resolution chart reader. I enjoy photography. I recognize that there are and always will be trade-offs. I opt for convenience and that means zoom lenses. While I understand that my zoom may not produce the same resolution numbers as your prime, I also don't have to lug around a bag full of primes, worry about missing the image while changing out the lens nor worry about dust getting on the sensor.

But getting back to the kit lens... I opted to purchase the body with the kit since it was so incredibly inexpensive. I've not regretted my decision for one minute.

Falcons · 01-01-2008, 12:12 AM

I really don't get these sort of questions. Just what is it about the jpegs you don't like? You should really point us to these jpeg images you don't like and then explain what it is you don't like about them. Are you suggesting a fault or is it just your subjective opinion?

I have seen stunning photos taken with the kit lenses of all models of cameras and the Pentax kit lens is right up with the best of them. I never had the Pentax Kit lens, as here in OZ they use the sigma lens for the kit, but i can say that the Pentax DA 16-45 was a huge step up in class from the Sigma.
I also have never shot with a K10D, still using my *istDS and I am happy with the jpegs although I do prefer to shoot raw.

Anyway , back to your question - If you are looking at ,and can afford, a 31ltd Prime and you are going to be shooting in raw - why are you worrying about jpegs taken with a kit lens?

Welcome to the Pentax Forums - Looking forward to your second post.

Finn · 01-01-2008, 07:59 AM

As mentioned above, kind of a silly comparison. Of course the images from an FA31 will be "better", a word I use with VERY big quotation marks.

A better comparison would be with the DA 16-45, which as a zoom is a better comparison with the kit lens. It also happens to be a major step up from the kit, in my experience.

Rickster · 01-01-2008, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Finn

A better comparison would be with the DA 16-45, which as a zoom is a better comparison with the kit lens. It also happens to be a major step up from the kit, in my experience.

At 6X the price I would think so!

cheers,
Rick

12-29-2007, 11:49 AM	#1
StevenDeLapp Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2	Sharpness of K10D RAW Photos Kit Zoom vs Prime Lenses? Am thinking of buying a K10D but am not impressed with the JPEG photos using the 18-55mm kit lens. Has anyone tested the sharpness of their photos using the kit lens vs a good prime? Am especially interested in how the FA31mm F1.8 compares to the kit (using RAW to minimize and degradation)! Pentax Lens Review Database - 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Thanks Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Prime and zoom lenses quality difference	alphalt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	05-08-2010 03:04 PM
Camera bag for K10D and 3 prime lenses	Digitalis	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	15	04-02-2009 07:53 AM
For Sale - Sold: K10D Body, 2 lenses, bag, filters, etc.--complete kit	arg1285	Sold Items	3	07-10-2008 08:58 AM
New Lenses v Old for the growing family, prime or zoom!! Help and guidance please.	London Calling	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	03-12-2008 04:20 AM

12-29-2007, 03:49 PM	#2
LeoTaylor Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 679	I do not have the FA 31 but I'd bet a prime lens costing $869 from B&H will be better than a lens with a street price of $100. I use my kit lens often, but don't expect miracles.

12-29-2007, 04:16 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Ask an obvious question, get few replies, sorry.

12-29-2007, 04:36 PM	#4
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by StevenDeLapp Am thinking of buying a K10D but am not impressed with the JPEG photos using the 18-55mm kit lens. Has anyone tested the sharpness of their photos using the kit lens vs a good prime? Am especially interested in how the FA31mm F1.8 compares to the kit (using RAW to minimize and degradation)! Pentax Lens Review Database - 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Thanks Steve Drop into the lens test forum. You should see user reviews of all the lenses there. The kit lens is very good for what it is. It is far from perfect, but actually is one of the better kit lenses out there from any maker.

12-29-2007, 05:51 PM	#5
TomInJax Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Jacksonville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 531	Tonight I had to make a decision to purchase and replace my 18-55 kit lens, or replace the Pentax 50-200 lens (that I just purchased used, and haven't yet received). I chose to get the 50-135mm. (I will be selling the 50-200 that I purchased from Sailrace if anyone is interested) In cased you missed my line of thought, here is my reasoning: From all reviews of the kit 18-55 kit lens, it is pretty good. I decided to keep it and get the 50-135 instead of the 16-50mm. Before you pick a new lens, study the reviews on this site and others. But, remember an investment in a lens will last much longer than an investment in a camera. I only say that because I keep forgetting this myself - and have to discover this again and again before I get it through my head.

12-30-2007, 01:55 AM	#6
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Steven, I think I can help you out: I did a comparison between the kit lens and a prime some time ago. Prerhaps this could be of interest to you. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/9750-some-conc...e-quality.html

12-30-2007, 06:45 AM	#7
roscot Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach VA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,363	The 31 limited is one of the finest SLR lenses ever produced by anybody, anywhere, at anytime. The kit lens is, well... a kit lens. It does very well for what it is. Your initial statement and then your request is a bit odd. You are saying that you are unimpressed with jpeg, but want this comparison in raw. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to look at some raw images produced by the kit? In any case, raw images need to be processed. So the final outcome is going to be dependent on the processor's skill and taste. The only way to really do this, is for you to do it yourself, with your own processing.

12-30-2007, 07:08 AM	#8
pentkon52 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: York Region Canada Posts: 641	I have noticed some very nice photos over at Pentaxgallery, that had used the 18-55. I have no idea what post processing may have been done, if any, but it seems to be a decent kit lens. Dave

12-30-2007, 07:33 AM	#9
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by StevenDeLapp Am thinking of buying a K10D but am not impressed with the JPEG photos using the 18-55mm kit lens. I'm not sure what buying a camera has to do with the kit lens. You can buy the body and lenses separately.

12-31-2007, 08:21 AM	#10
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Sorry, I am impressed with JPEGS and Raw images from the 18-55.

12-31-2007, 10:59 AM	#11
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Welcome to Pentax Forums Steve, Sorry, but I'm a kit lens supporter. I don't use it all that often any more, but when I do it usually amazes me. It really doesn't mater what DSLR you use or what lens you choose you'll discover that the person behind the camera is more important than anything else. The most expensive lens in my kit is a Sigma 135-400, which is an under $500.00 lens at todays prices. My average lens cost me less than $50.00 used. I don't think that there's a single person here who would say this reflects in my image quality. Although I do admit that I haven't perfected my macro photography yet.

12-31-2007, 10:54 PM	#12
JamesD Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 536	Both my wife and I enjoy our kit lenses. We're not lens' purists... elitists as it were. I've sometime noticed that some (not all of course) who argue long and loud about the superiority of primes are also among those who seldom produce any images in the forum for us to examine. I'm not a resolution chart reader. I enjoy photography. I recognize that there are and always will be trade-offs. I opt for convenience and that means zoom lenses. While I understand that my zoom may not produce the same resolution numbers as your prime, I also don't have to lug around a bag full of primes, worry about missing the image while changing out the lens nor worry about dust getting on the sensor. But getting back to the kit lens... I opted to purchase the body with the kit since it was so incredibly inexpensive. I've not regretted my decision for one minute.

01-01-2008, 12:12 AM	#13
Falcons Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Perth Photos: Gallery Posts: 669	I really don't get these sort of questions. Just what is it about the jpegs you don't like? You should really point us to these jpeg images you don't like and then explain what it is you don't like about them. Are you suggesting a fault or is it just your subjective opinion? I have seen stunning photos taken with the kit lenses of all models of cameras and the Pentax kit lens is right up with the best of them. I never had the Pentax Kit lens, as here in OZ they use the sigma lens for the kit, but i can say that the Pentax DA 16-45 was a huge step up in class from the Sigma. I also have never shot with a K10D, still using my *istDS and I am happy with the jpegs although I do prefer to shoot raw. Anyway , back to your question - If you are looking at ,and can afford, a 31ltd Prime and you are going to be shooting in raw - why are you worrying about jpegs taken with a kit lens? Welcome to the Pentax Forums - Looking forward to your second post.

01-01-2008, 07:59 AM	#14
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	As mentioned above, kind of a silly comparison. Of course the images from an FA31 will be "better", a word I use with VERY big quotation marks. A better comparison would be with the DA 16-45, which as a zoom is a better comparison with the kit lens. It also happens to be a major step up from the kit, in my experience.

01-01-2008, 08:56 AM	#15
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	Originally posted by Finn A better comparison would be with the DA 16-45, which as a zoom is a better comparison with the kit lens. It also happens to be a major step up from the kit, in my experience. At 6X the price I would think so! cheers, Rick