Kit lens not up to much

You mean arty, out of focus shots like this ?



Fast Food by kh1234567890, on Flickr

Understand where Smeggy's coming from, but the kit lens isn't really geared up for shallow dof shooting. Just not that kind of lens - f3.5 at 18mm doesn't really give subject isolation, it just makes the image look a bit soft!

And not all subjects suit a shallow DOF of course!

A good copy of the kit lens should be acceptable for landscapes and streetscapes, and other general stuff, but bad copies abound. My last one was very ropey. Upgrade to something a bit better (DA17-70mm, Tamron 17-50mm) for more consistent results.

Not everyone has the same requirements Mr S, so we need to take into account their likely needs.

We all know what people mean by performs well in the context of stopping down the lens.

You say f/8 is a boring aperture, but that's not far from saying that the equipment is dictating whether or not the image is interesting. This is "You must have a really good camera" syndrome rewritten as "You must have a really wide aperture lens".

The photographer makes the image.

Hence why i've now upgraded to the Tammy 17-50

But John is right, i'm not expecting the lens to transform my images. But hoping it will give a few options when picking out details on the cars.

My DAL version 1 seems sharp enough in the centre when stopped down, but really pretty soft at the edges. The images posted in this thread seem better in that regard, but I'm still seeing some softness (the bottom left corners in particular). My SMC F 28-80 is a lot sharper in the corners than my DAL 18-55.

I only got the 18-55WR because Amazon had the K5II kit cheaper than just buying a K5II body :bonkers:

now I have it I am glad I do, my main focal lengths pretty much covered with the 50-135 2.8 * 40mm 2.8 but if I need a wider angle than that I would trust it, I noticed a bit of edge fringing on a couple of test shots I did but not bad and nothing that 10 seconds in Lightroom couldn't sort.

it certainly outperforms its value.

When using the kit lens I usually just set the aperture at f/8 and work in Av mode (which I use most of the time anyway), even if I have to crank the ISO more than I'd like.

If I'm out in the rain it's because I'm somewhere I want to see/photograph, not because I'm out taking pictures for the fun of it, taking arty narrow DoF shots.

My version 1 copy was very good across the range but I recently brought a WR version and that seems a bit on the soft side across the range - but I did buy it for when I'm out and the weather gets bad - nothing seems sharp when it's pouring down!
Oh and it was cheap!

i have the dal one and for what they are its ok for me i agree you have to crank up the iso and the apeture taken some good photos with mine

phill

Thank you for all your interesting comments. I don't think there is anything wrong with my lens as such. The images are the same if I use manual focus or AF. Also at F8 the images are alright but that's what they are, alright not WOW! Looking at the price of a body only and the kit, the lens cost £70 so I can't expect too much and I should have cottoned on to that before I bought. It is possible that I have one not so good and I might talk to SRS where it came from and see what they say. I think my point was that it is a shame that such a good camera is sold with a very average lens in the first place and not at least as good as lenses that are many years old.

I think the 18-55 WR is brill. If you have a really wet day it is the goto lens for me- compromised perhaps in terms of IQ but is there any other manufacturer giving a weather sealed lens basically "for free" with their cameras? Bravo Pentax (for once!).

I use a Nikon D3100 and D40 at work and the Nikon kit lens is absolutely pants compared with the Pentax.

I meant narrower DOF shots, but sometimes arty OOF shots can work too

Except it isn't.

The photographer sets the aperture

I still maintain that those of you who have such a low opinion of the 18-55 lens have been unlucky and that if your copy is that bad, you should seek a replacement.
I spent some time looking through shots I had taken when it was my sole lens and I will stick my neck out and say that in some circumstances it can hold it's own against the 18-135, even the 16-45 and, just about, the Sigma 10-20 in terms of IQ...and, stick a reasonable length of tube on it and it makes a surprisingly good close-up lens.

I thought the kit lens was fine and perfectly acceptable. I've had two versions of the 16-45mm and they were not significantly better then the kit. My technique may be suspect.

[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/IMGP7930_zpsafe62f9c.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/IMGP7912_zps0867fbe7.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/kit_comp_xx_zps0a0030d4.jpg[/IMG]