DA 18-55 WR

Often considered a starter lens. I've just bought a used 18-55 WR from a forum member to try out on my new K-70.
I used to have glued to my K-30 a 128-135 WR but they both now gone and below I've posted 3 photos I took on the first sunny day in weeks which I think do the 18-55 justice.

What do you think?

The 18-55mm WR lens is decent enough when stopped down and the WR capabilities make it very useful. I've upgraded to the 16-85mm but it's a lot more money compared to the 18-55mm. For value it's hard to beat.

The 18-55 (version 2) in all its guises is one of the sharpest lenses I have seen. Considering how little it costs and how much detail it resolves (moire on a lot of sensors) it is amazing for the price.

I was very happy with mine for many years. There are better lenses but for the money it's a good performer.
Bury St Edmunds looking lovely also.

I started out with the original 18-55 on digital. When stopped down it took great photos.

I think folk can be inclined to disparage the "kit-lens" unfairly. Certainly saw that on other forums.

Bang for buck it scores very highly.

Of course they do...

They (kit lenses) are used even on the entry-level cameras, used by beginners and snap-shotters.
They are cheap - good lenses have to be out of reach of young uns.
They are zooms - 'real' photographers use primes.
They don't have wide apertures, so obviously can't be used in the dark.

I've mentioned this previously, but kit lenses from other brands are typically crap. Like really bad.
Yes Pentax includes this lens in it's kits, but it's miles ahead of the traditional 'kit lens'.

It has it's strengths and weaknesses like anything, but if you play to the strengths (around f8 for example, and mid range in the zoom) then it can be quite the performer.

I've recently stepped up to the 16-85mm, but I was clear about why I wanted to do that and purchased a new lens to fill the void the 18-55 was giving me. Your needs may vary from mine and I kept the 18-55 for a very long time before that.

You're absolutely right. Before I purchased my first Pentax DSLR I had a Canon something or the other. Then I came across an affordable Pentax so with the ability to use my trusty old K & M lenses I bought it complete with the 18-55mm. I took some comparison shots with the two supposedly similar lenses. As you say the Pentax one was fantastic, virtually sharp across the frame whereas the Canon just produced very blurred edges. The comparison image contained some bar-codes at the sides of the frame; the Pentax reproduced the bar-code quite clearly, the Canon's was very blurry and unreadable. I sold the Canon on soon afterwards. Moral of the story - the 18-55 lens is important to keep new buyers on board. Folly to skimp on it.

I was looking at some of the photos I took with my K10D and the kit lens the other day. The IQ was great. I've never tried it on my K-3. Maybe I should. 🤔

Yes, you should. I have and also get great images from my 50-200 ED too

From experience I don't agree with this. My non WR DA 18-55 pentax was ok, had to stop down but not bad. However my Canon 18-55 IS kit lens was better. Here's a quote from photozone.de 'The resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is amazing even based on the EOS 50D. The lens resolution may no longer reach the limits of the sensor resolution (as it did on the EOS 350D) but the quality level remains very high throughout the zoom range.' See link for the full review. Our Panasonic kit lens was pretty good as well.
I upgraded my Pentax to the WR version, that wasn't as good as my DA version. I got rid of it and kept the DA. I've still got the Canon as well.
It may be that other companies kit lenses were poor a long time ago, but things have changed.