It may be that the poll attracted people who are lens connoisseurs, proud of their lens choices, slightly more than the average kit lens user who probably hasn't even signed up to the forum let alone gravitate towards poll threads. But hey it's just a bit of fun!

Well I got a PK-M 20mm f4 for just within your budget recently. Really enjoying it although the reason it was cheap was that it was scratched

So I think the Sigma 24II is along the right lines as an inexpensive pocket street lens. Here's one that shows the sharpness at f2.8.

Algi

The Tamron 17-50 with the row of images above is noticeably better. And re focussing - both lenses were LV focused on the same point. You can tell it's not focussing error because the kit lens isn't just soft in the parts of the image cropped from either side of the shot, there's some sort of optical issue - the image is for want of a better word 'bleary'. And that applies to near objects, the middle distance rooftops, and distant tree peeping out from behind the rooftops. This is not the case for the Tamron.

Well the reviews and image samples on the web seem check out against my own experiences. It's a decent enough lens and great value for what it is.

There's nothing I'd like more than to find my kit lens is as good as something like the Tamron 17-50. It's compact and lightweight by comparison.

18mm, which is probably the most important focal length in it's range IMO... This is the second sample of the WR kit lens Clifton Camera's sent me, after I returned the first almost straight away. The Mark II lens I had with my K200D was similar, and was so much worse on one side that I assumed it was decentred and got rid of it. To be fair, it is a flimsy lens, and that one may have got knocked at some point.

The Tamron is very sharp at 2.8, for a zoom lens. The Sigma 24 might just edge it, I'm not sure.

Here's my little test of the kit zoom vs the Tamron, at widest setting. (click for full size).

I don't know what's going on at the edges with my kit lens, but I've had four of them and they have all had that sort of slight 'through a glass paperweight' quality at the edges if you pixel peep. Although it has to be said they've all been capable of taking nice pictures!




And a full sample of the Tamron at 17mm f5.6 link

If you have the Tamron, I doubt many MF primes could give it a kicking on IQ alone. I think they make more sense if you can't afford to buy something like the Tamron but need something a bit better/faster than the kit lens. Or if you just want the enjoyment of using a small, light, unobtrusive prime. Some primes have special qualities, such as unique bokeh or colour rendering. I bought a 20mm recently, and it does seem to have it's own character, unless it's just my imagination. I don't need to check if it's as sharp as the Tamron. I know it probably won't be.

Yes because the sigma 24 is much smaller, cheaper, and with much nicer manual focus. As for the kit lens being a paragon of optical quality - pffft! It's 'okay' - let's leave it at that.

Another vote for the Tamron 17-50. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this lens to sharpness junkies. My 'Cwmorthin' gallery shot was with the Tamron and at 1:1 everything from the grass blades in the foreground to the stones of the ruined building was clean and sharp, right to the edges. It was shot at f5.6.