Do kit lenses suck?

deltoidjohn · 01-01-2011, 03:08 AM

The current kit lenses are great for general photography. The only thing is they do not truly excel at any particular type of photography. The 18-55 and 55-200 combo is like a jack of all trades but master of none. For the price it is truly amazing, but you can't expect to get every single photography you can imagine using just those lenses. And that's where those manual lenses come in!

Docrwm · 01-01-2011, 09:20 AM

Thanks for sharing your story. I've been impressed with the performance of the DAL55-300, its way better than a "kit lens" ought to be IMHO.

The optical formula didn't change for the Fast50s for decades from what I can tell, so the addition of AF to the 50/1.4 doesn't change its performance optically merely its utility for older shooters like me

Nice shots with the A zoom.

twitch · 01-02-2011, 01:29 AM

Yes, the kit lenses do suck. Luckily the da* lenses suck a little less, and the limiteds only suck a little.

Ratmagiclady · 01-02-2011, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Pepe Guitarra

I got this lens and did not test it until yesterday: Pentax-A 35-105mm, What a great surprise, and it is so heavy, I can do my weight workout during a photo shoot:

Hee. That's the opposite number of my trusty Canon FD lens of the same specs. I call it 'A Small Stack Of Primes.' It's pretty close to that. I hear the Pentax version is at least as good, and in any event it's a cut above 'kit lens,' strictly-speaking. On a crop sensor it wouldn't be doing the same job, (Got my eye on a Tammie 28-75 for that, but for now I've got a quirky-but- usually-fun fast 28-105 Sigma for the Pentaxes.)

Anyway, the Pentax-A version looks to be the same design overall: they're well-regarded but not too sought-after cause of the range they cover on crop. If it's like the old Canon (said to be an Angeneiux design) it's relatively free of a lot of zoom-lens vices, if pretty chunky for its day. )

I'd say, by the way, that the current kit lenses don't suck, as kit lenses go. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to buy one, but it's not too bad. (The cheap kit zooms of film days were generally turn-your-nose-up abysmal.) They really aren't getting the most out of what the Pentax DSLRs can do, but they're about the best in the business. Just try and keep em stopped down to around f8 or 11 where feasible, and nearer the middle of the zoom range, and they're pretty nice. The macro's a bit more than a word on a focusing ring, too, which is common these days but was a bit of a pleasant surprise to me.

littledrawe · 01-03-2011, 12:11 AM

I took this with a kit lens and a lot of people seem to like it.

I think people just feel limited by the kit lens because there is so much more out there and the reason why you got a DSLR is to explore what is beyond the land of the point and shoots.

JeffJS · 01-03-2011, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Hee. That's the opposite number of my trusty Canon FD lens of the same specs. I call it 'A Small Stack Of Primes.' It's pretty close to that. I hear the Pentax version is at least as good, and in any event it's a cut above 'kit lens,' strictly-speaking. On a crop sensor it wouldn't be doing the same job, (Got my eye on a Tammie 28-75 for that, but for now I've got a quirky-but- usually-fun fast 28-105 Sigma for the Pentaxes.)

Anyway, the Pentax-A version looks to be the same design overall: they're well-regarded but not too sought-after cause of the range they cover on crop. If it's like the old Canon (said to be an Angeneiux design) it's relatively free of a lot of zoom-lens vices, if pretty chunky for its day. )

I'd say, by the way, that the current kit lenses don't suck, as kit lenses go. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to buy one, but it's not too bad. (The cheap kit zooms of film days were generally turn-your-nose-up abysmal.) They really aren't getting the most out of what the Pentax DSLRs can do, but they're about the best in the business. Just try and keep em stopped down to around f8 or 11 where feasible, and nearer the middle of the zoom range, and they're pretty nice. The macro's a bit more than a word on a focusing ring, too, which is common these days but was a bit of a pleasant surprise to me.

One nice thing about the A35-105 f3.5 is it holds it's focus over the entire (normal non macro) zoom range or at least mine does. You're right though, on the crop cameras where people are use to something like the 18-55 kit, this lens doesn't have a huge following from what I can see.

**Pepe Guitarra** · 01-03-2011, 01:30 PM

Does anyone know when Pentax is going to offer the full frame camera? Or is there one already?

JeffJS · 01-03-2011, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Pepe Guitarra

Does anyone know when Pentax is going to offer the full frame camera? Or is there one already?

All kinds of them on ebay. Just buy some film as the sensors in them are a little flaky and tend not to record anything

. Seriously though, I'm one of the people betting against Pentax ever doing a FF dSLR.

**paulh** · 01-03-2011, 05:21 PM

Nice post, Pepe! Your experience somewhat mirrors my own regarding kit lenses. My 'kit lens' is a Quantaray 28-90 AF zoom that was sold to me with the camera. Within a month I acquired an M50 1.7, and a 28mm 2.8 and used those manual primes exclusively for a month or so. Besides the improved IQ, they taught me the aperture/shutter/iso relationship more quickly than if I'd stuck with my AF zoom. After a time, I'd nearly forgotten how to use my AF lens! Well, I do use it more often now, and can appreciate what it can do after cutting my teeth on the old MF primes.

Paul

**Pepe Guitarra** · 01-03-2011, 08:58 PM

Here is a pic with my Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 iso200 - s:1/60:

**Pepe Guitarra** · 01-03-2011, 09:09 PM

Here is another one with my Pentax DAL 55-200mm - ISO 1600 Shutter Speed Priority: 1/800:

**Pepe Guitarra** · 01-03-2011, 09:43 PM

This one is with my SMC Pentax-M 40mm f2.8

clockwork247 · 01-03-2011, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by paulh

Nice post, Pepe! Your experience somewhat mirrors my own regarding kit lenses. My 'kit lens' is a Quantaray 28-90 AF zoom that was sold to me with the camera. Within a month I acquired an M50 1.7, and a 28mm 2.8 and used those manual primes exclusively for a month or so. Besides the improved IQ, they taught me the aperture/shutter/iso relationship more quickly than if I'd stuck with my AF zoom. After a time, I'd nearly forgotten how to use my AF lens! Well, I do use it more often now, and can appreciate what it can do after cutting my teeth on the old MF primes.

Paul

what exactly does AF have to do with aperture shutter and ISO? i'm just curious.

**paulh** · 01-04-2011, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

what exactly does AF have to do with aperture shutter and ISO? i'm just curious.

OK, maybe I should have compared an 'auto' lens (one that communicates with the camera) against a 'manual' lens (one that doesn't). Of course someone can learn the basics using a full auto lens, but I'm lazy. If I'm presented with a challenging shot (weird lighting or other conditions), I'm likely to fall back on green mode, or semi-auto mode. By limiting myself to only manual mode, and forcing myself to deal with the exposure setting on each & every shot, I think I picked up on the basics more quickly than if I hadn't. YMMV.

Paul

Alizarine · 01-06-2011, 02:41 AM

Kit lenses don't suck, as far as I've seen, it's up to the user to make the most out of it I guess.
I've been taking cool photos with the kit lens and though they would never, ever match up to the sharpness primes can bring, they can still make helluva nice photos. I checked the Pentax gallery for photos where the DA 3.5-5.6 kit lens was used and I have to admit I don't know how 90% of those awesome shots were taken (but they did!) with it!

and above all - Pentax delivered the best kit lenses I've worked with.

01-03-2011, 08:58 PM	#25
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223 Original Poster	Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 Here is a pic with my Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 iso200 - s:1/60: Attached Images

01-03-2011, 09:09 PM	#26
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223 Original Poster	Kit lens Here is another one with my Pentax DAL 55-200mm - ISO 1600 Shutter Speed Priority: 1/800: Attached Images

01-03-2011, 09:43 PM	#27
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223 Original Poster	Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 This one is with my SMC Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What 2 lenses to replace kit lenses ?	dales	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	06-05-2009 09:10 PM
What 2 lenses to replace kit lenses ?	dales	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	06-05-2009 08:59 PM
I still suck	xecutech	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	21	02-22-2009 08:13 AM
For Sale - Sold: K100D, 2 Kit Lenses, Filter Kit, Book, & DVD Tutorial	DaveInPA	Sold Items	7	01-30-2009 02:40 AM
For Sale - Sold: SF1 Kit, ME w/50, 250/SL, K AF Lenses, M42 Lenses	247nino	Sold Items	5	05-07-2008 04:28 PM

01-01-2011, 03:08 AM	#16
deltoidjohn Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Gold Coast, QLD Posts: 88	The current kit lenses are great for general photography. The only thing is they do not truly excel at any particular type of photography. The 18-55 and 55-200 combo is like a jack of all trades but master of none. For the price it is truly amazing, but you can't expect to get every single photography you can imagine using just those lenses. And that's where those manual lenses come in!

01-01-2011, 09:20 AM	#17
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Thanks for sharing your story. I've been impressed with the performance of the DAL55-300, its way better than a "kit lens" ought to be IMHO. The optical formula didn't change for the Fast50s for decades from what I can tell, so the addition of AF to the 50/1.4 doesn't change its performance optically merely its utility for older shooters like me Nice shots with the A zoom.

01-02-2011, 01:29 AM	#18
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Yes, the kit lenses do suck. Luckily the da* lenses suck a little less, and the limiteds only suck a little.

01-02-2011, 11:09 PM	#19
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Pepe Guitarra I got this lens and did not test it until yesterday: Pentax-A 35-105mm, What a great surprise, and it is so heavy, I can do my weight workout during a photo shoot: Hee. That's the opposite number of my trusty Canon FD lens of the same specs. I call it 'A Small Stack Of Primes.' It's pretty close to that. I hear the Pentax version is at least as good, and in any event it's a cut above 'kit lens,' strictly-speaking. On a crop sensor it wouldn't be doing the same job, (Got my eye on a Tammie 28-75 for that, but for now I've got a quirky-but- usually-fun fast 28-105 Sigma for the Pentaxes.) Anyway, the Pentax-A version looks to be the same design overall: they're well-regarded but not too sought-after cause of the range they cover on crop. If it's like the old Canon (said to be an Angeneiux design) it's relatively free of a lot of zoom-lens vices, if pretty chunky for its day. ) I'd say, by the way, that the current kit lenses don't suck, as kit lenses go. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to buy one, but it's not too bad. (The cheap kit zooms of film days were generally turn-your-nose-up abysmal.) They really aren't getting the most out of what the Pentax DSLRs can do, but they're about the best in the business. Just try and keep em stopped down to around f8 or 11 where feasible, and nearer the middle of the zoom range, and they're pretty nice. The macro's a bit more than a word on a focusing ring, too, which is common these days but was a bit of a pleasant surprise to me.

01-03-2011, 12:11 AM	#20
littledrawe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Red Rock Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,514	I took this with a kit lens and a lot of people seem to like it. I think people just feel limited by the kit lens because there is so much more out there and the reason why you got a DSLR is to explore what is beyond the land of the point and shoots.

01-03-2011, 07:25 AM	#21
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Hee. That's the opposite number of my trusty Canon FD lens of the same specs. I call it 'A Small Stack Of Primes.' It's pretty close to that. I hear the Pentax version is at least as good, and in any event it's a cut above 'kit lens,' strictly-speaking. On a crop sensor it wouldn't be doing the same job, (Got my eye on a Tammie 28-75 for that, but for now I've got a quirky-but- usually-fun fast 28-105 Sigma for the Pentaxes.) Anyway, the Pentax-A version looks to be the same design overall: they're well-regarded but not too sought-after cause of the range they cover on crop. If it's like the old Canon (said to be an Angeneiux design) it's relatively free of a lot of zoom-lens vices, if pretty chunky for its day. ) I'd say, by the way, that the current kit lenses don't suck, as kit lenses go. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to buy one, but it's not too bad. (The cheap kit zooms of film days were generally turn-your-nose-up abysmal.) They really aren't getting the most out of what the Pentax DSLRs can do, but they're about the best in the business. Just try and keep em stopped down to around f8 or 11 where feasible, and nearer the middle of the zoom range, and they're pretty nice. The macro's a bit more than a word on a focusing ring, too, which is common these days but was a bit of a pleasant surprise to me. One nice thing about the A35-105 f3.5 is it holds it's focus over the entire (normal non macro) zoom range or at least mine does. You're right though, on the crop cameras where people are use to something like the 18-55 kit, this lens doesn't have a huge following from what I can see.

01-03-2011, 01:30 PM	#22
Pepe Guitarra Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,223 Original Poster	Does anyone know when Pentax is going to offer the full frame camera? Or is there one already?

01-03-2011, 01:55 PM	#23
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Pepe Guitarra Does anyone know when Pentax is going to offer the full frame camera? Or is there one already? All kinds of them on ebay. Just buy some film as the sensors in them are a little flaky and tend not to record anything . Seriously though, I'm one of the people betting against Pentax ever doing a FF dSLR.

01-03-2011, 05:21 PM	#24
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,319	Nice post, Pepe! Your experience somewhat mirrors my own regarding kit lenses. My 'kit lens' is a Quantaray 28-90 AF zoom that was sold to me with the camera. Within a month I acquired an M50 1.7, and a 28mm 2.8 and used those manual primes exclusively for a month or so. Besides the improved IQ, they taught me the aperture/shutter/iso relationship more quickly than if I'd stuck with my AF zoom. After a time, I'd nearly forgotten how to use my AF lens! Well, I do use it more often now, and can appreciate what it can do after cutting my teeth on the old MF primes. Paul

01-03-2011, 10:27 PM	#28
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by paulh Nice post, Pepe! Your experience somewhat mirrors my own regarding kit lenses. My 'kit lens' is a Quantaray 28-90 AF zoom that was sold to me with the camera. Within a month I acquired an M50 1.7, and a 28mm 2.8 and used those manual primes exclusively for a month or so. Besides the improved IQ, they taught me the aperture/shutter/iso relationship more quickly than if I'd stuck with my AF zoom. After a time, I'd nearly forgotten how to use my AF lens! Well, I do use it more often now, and can appreciate what it can do after cutting my teeth on the old MF primes. Paul what exactly does AF have to do with aperture shutter and ISO? i'm just curious.

01-04-2011, 12:37 PM	#29
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,319	Originally posted by clockwork247 what exactly does AF have to do with aperture shutter and ISO? i'm just curious. OK, maybe I should have compared an 'auto' lens (one that communicates with the camera) against a 'manual' lens (one that doesn't). Of course someone can learn the basics using a full auto lens, but I'm lazy. If I'm presented with a challenging shot (weird lighting or other conditions), I'm likely to fall back on green mode, or semi-auto mode. By limiting myself to only manual mode, and forcing myself to deal with the exposure setting on each & every shot, I think I picked up on the basics more quickly than if I hadn't. YMMV. Paul

01-06-2011, 02:41 AM	#30
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Kit lenses don't suck, as far as I've seen, it's up to the user to make the most out of it I guess. I've been taking cool photos with the kit lens and though they would never, ever match up to the sharpness primes can bring, they can still make helluva nice photos. I checked the Pentax gallery for photos where the DA 3.5-5.6 kit lens was used and I have to admit I don't know how 90% of those awesome shots were taken (but they did!) with it! and above all - Pentax delivered the best kit lenses I've worked with.